Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill

Order for Second Reading read

Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Let me first thank the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare organisations that have helped me with the preparation of the Bill for its First and Second Reading.
As Members will know, this is the third Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill to be considered in the House in the past three years. The first was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and was considered on Second Reading on 14 February 1992. Clause 1 of that Bill would have made it an offence wilfully to inflict any suffering on or cruelly ill-treat any animal. Clause 2 would have outlawed all hunting with dogs. Members may recall that the hunting clause caused palpitations among some Conservative Members; however, no one appeared to object to clause 1.
History records that the Bill was defeated by 187 votes to 175 votes. That defeat was due in part to the unprecedented intervention of almost the entire Cabinet, none of whom had appeared in the Chamber that day until the Division bell sounded. Quite why Cabinet Members found it necessary to abandon Government business to intervene in a debate on a private Member's Bill has never been explained, particularly as the 1992 election was to be held within two months, so there was little chance of the Bill reaching the Statute Book.
The second Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill received its Second Reading on 3 March 1995. It was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who sits beside me today. Like the previous Bill, it received huge public support. It was estimated that Members received more than half a million postcards and letters of support from the public. I confirm that, during the past few weeks, Members on both sides of the Chamber have received a similar amount of correspondence.
Members will recall that the only part of that Bill to raise hackles was clause 2, which sought to ban hunting with dogs. Clause 1 sought to make it an offence to cruelly kick, beat or torture any wild animal. Many of those who regard the hunting and killing of foxes, deer and hares as a proud sport again declared no objections to clause 1. The Bill was passed by 253 votes to nil—the biggest ever majority for a private Member's Bill.
What followed, however, was a catalogue of parliamentary filibustering tactics to stop the Bill making any further progress. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton, who is a devote and able campaigner on animal welfare, managed to get it into Committee but, because of time constraints, he was forced to give up the hunting clause. What remained was a much diluted Bill that sought to make it an offence to cruelly kick, beat or torture wild animals.
Amazingly, despite the assurances that had been given, fox-hunting supporters in the House announced that they could not accept the offence of torture, as their legal advice was that the hunting and snaring of animals would probably be interpreted in the courts as cruel torture. I have a feeling that that admission may return to haunt them.
The outcome was that hasty negotiations took place between all sides and resulted in my hon. Friend's Bill being reworded so that it would make it an offence cruelly to kick, beat, impale, crush, burn or drown any wild animal. In that form, it had the agreement of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), chairman of the British Field Sports Society, and passed Report stage and Third Reading without objection.
In the other place three months later, the vice-chairman of the British Field Sports Society, Lord Mancroft, and other fox-hunting supporters—knowing full well that even one small amendment would almost certainly cause the Bill to run out of time—insisted on tabling seven or eight amendments, to wreck the Bill's chances. Nevertheless, so desperate was the need to create legislation that would at least acknowledge that wild animals are capable of suffering cruelty, that amendments were agreed. However, the lack of just a few seconds of parliamentary time prevented the Bill from progressing further.
We are again searching for justice for wild animals. My Bill's sponsors, together with the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports, accept that the measure is not a vehicle for outlawing blood sports. The hon. Member for Wimbledon and I spent many hours discussing the Bill's wording. There have been intense negotiations with BFS officials and lawyers, the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports. Discussions have been cordial, with a willingness to find solutions.
They led to considerable concessions on my part, and I reluctantly accepted one or two amendments in the other place. I waived the opportunity, after guarantees had been given, to resubmit the Bill in the form that it left this House last year. That would almost certainly have led, under the Parliament Act, to the Bill being passed without any fear of Lords amendments.

Sir Michael Marshall: Many hon. Members in all parts of the House wished to be present for this debate. Some of us may not be able to participate in any vote if these proceedings run the full length of the day, but the hon. Gentleman has much support and good will in principle. We understand his remarks about reaching a compromise. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can give me two assurances, in case there is not another opportunity.
I am anxious to be clear why domestic animals are excluded from the Bill—many of us wished to see it broadened in that way. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Bill will assist the RSPCA in the difficulty that it has encountered in bringing prosecutions in the past?

Mr. Meale: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on both points. The RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have been deeply involved at all stages. The Bill is about wild animals, and it replicates the protection given to domestic animals in the Protection of Animals Act 1911—although I agree that further legislation is probably needed to protect domestic animals.
I gave way in some of the negotiations because Conservative Members gave me their word that they would give the Bill a clear passage—including Government Whips, who are satisfied that I have taken into account the Government's technical amendments. After I met the Under-Secretary of State and civil servants and the amendments were passed to me, they were considered and included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton accepts that there was a technical flaw in his Bill, and it was removed.
The RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports have recorded horrific offences not covered by the original list, and they were added so that they would be outlawed by the Bill. I believe that the Bill in its present form has the total approval of the Government, British Field Sports Society, RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports and many other organisations.
Hopefully, it will soon be illegal to mutilate, kick, beat, nail, impale, stamp, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild animal with intend. Other cruel acts should be examined, but that list is a good basis for protecting wild animals. I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon and other hon. Members who support blood sports will not view the Bill with cynicism, but will accept that its progress should not be halted. In that way, we shall establish a measure that outlaws brutal and sadistic cruelty to wild animals.
I refer hon. Members to recent incidents where such a Bill would have helped to bring offenders to court. Near Sittingbourne last summer, two walkers found the carcases of two foxes smouldering over a fire in a quarry. A post mortem revealed that one of the foxes had been thrown on the fire while still alive, after being half strangled with a wire. The other fox was so badly burnt that the remains could not be fully examined and the cause of death established. No prosecution could be brought, as no offence in law existed to deal with the culprits.
The same year, a vixen—having been dug out of its earth by a terrier gang—was nailed to a tree while still alive and left to die, with its cubs pathetically waiting at the foot of a tree. In Charlton in south-east London last summer, a gang of youths caught a fox on open ground, tied a rope around and dragged it behind a motor bike, causing it to die from horrific injuries.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the report in yesterday's Daily Express about "graffiti yobs" who
sprayed Kelvin the hedgehog with bright red paint.
Aerosol chemicals caused its spines to drop out and now, two months later, he is naked.
He would have died left out in the cold. But Kelvin is lucky.
Kelvin, whose photograph accompanies the report, is now being looked after and is healthy and well. Will the spraying of paints or other substances, which is sadly a growing trend, be made illegal by his Bill?

Mr. Meale: Yes, because spraying an animal with paint is an act of cruelty.
In July 1993, in Hollington, Kent, a hedgehog was killed when a man kicked it 40 ft against a wall. That hedgehog had recently given birth to five young, and was being fed by a family in their garden. In May 1995 in Portsmouth, a hedgehog was killed by teenagers, who pulled a slab from a wall, carried it across a field on their backs, placed it on top of a hedgehog and took it in turns to jump off a bench on to the slab until the animal was crushed to death.
Those are just five instances, and the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) described another. The RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports and other animal welfare organisations have catalogued tens of thousands of similar cases every year in which charges cannot be brought.
Many of my friends and the majority of the public will be disappointed that my Bill does not outlaw the hunting and killing of wild animals using dogs or the strangulation of animals on wire snares. So am I—but the reality is that, if I had brought such a measure before the House, it would have stood little chance of becoming law at this time. My discussions with the relevant organisations took into account the possibility of a general election being held and opposition in the other place to a measure that tackled such heinous crimes.
We went for a Bill to protect animals as quickly as possible, because of the scale of the problem. I would have preferred a Bill that tackled other forms of animal cruelty, but it was in the interests of the animal kingdom to proceed as we did. Perhaps the House will soon have a meaningful opportunity to examine and change the unfair preservation of certain interests—particularly in the other place, together with an examination of their Lordships' mansions, tens of thousands of acres of land and privileged position in society. Public opinion is with me in that respect, as with animal welfare. I hope one day that we will be able to have a full and frank debate on that aspect.
If any Conservative Members are thinking about opposing the Bill today, I wish to point out that it is a genuine attempt by Members of Parliament of all parties, who care about the animal kingdom, to start to put proper legislation into place. I believe that if any Member of Parliament—of any party—allows this country to continue without proper legislation to stop thugs and hooligans horrendously and cruelly torturing and killing wild animals for sport and personal enjoyment, he or she does not deserve to be here at all. I commend the Bill to the House, and I ask for the support of every hon. Member in the Chamber.

Sir John Cope: I am a member of the British Field Sports Society and have been for many years, much longer than I have been a Member of Parliament, but I am glad to support the Bill today. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who moved the Bill in a measured way, was very sensible to limit the objectives of the Bill as he has described, and also to seek wide agreement before introducing it.
I took a little part in some of the negotiations that took place between the hon. Member for Mansfield and the British Field Sports Society. I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), the chairman of the BFSS, who took part from our side.
We are all concerned about the cases of terrible cruelty that have been brought to our attention by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, some of which the hon. Member for Mansfield has described this morning, and for which the society has not been able to prosecute successfully those people who should be brought to book.
At the same time, I wish to make it clear that I would not have been able to support the Bill if it had also attempted to ban hunting and other field sports. I own no land, and I do not fulfil the other criteria mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I am a strong supporter of field sports. The properly conducted, traditional field sports of this country have my support. Many of my constituents take part in them, they provide considerable employment, and they continue to contribute to the preservation of wildlife and of the countryside as we know it.
I am therefore opposed to any attempt to ban hunting and other field sports, and will continue to oppose any such attempts vigorously. I could not have supported the Bill if, directly or indirectly, it threatened to do so.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Mansfield and many others take a different view. We have in the past debated whether certain field sports should be made illegal, and no doubt we shall do again, as the hon. Gentleman has previously suggested. I am ready to defend field sports again if necessary. However, the Bill is not intended to attack field sports. The hon. Gentleman made that clear, as has the RSPCA in its briefing on the Bill.
I entirely accept those assurances, but those of us who support field sports have to be vigilant not only against full frontal attack, as happens occasionally, but against possible incidental effects of the wording of Bills that may not have been intended by the promoters. That problem gave rise to the difficulties at the end of the discussion of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill last year.
I originally had three concerns about the possible wording of the Bill. The first was that farmers, gardeners, motorists or other people who accidentally maimed or killed a wild mammal in the course of perfectly legitimate activities might find themselves facing the same charge as someone who was deliberately cruel in the way described by the hon. Member for Mansfield. My second concern was that legitimate agricultural activities, such as pest control or the deliberate dispatching of wounded animals, might be affected by the Bill. My third worry was that traditional field sports might be threatened, not by the deliberate and stated intention of the RSPCA, but by the misuse of the wording of the Bill.
In the course of the discussions over the wording of the Bill, the hon. Member for Mansfield may have thought that we were sometimes overly concerned about the ways that the wording might be twisted and used, but we were right to be concerned. There are some fanatical people, who are viciously anti-farmer and anti-hunt, and sometimes both. This week, my local paper reported an outbreak of arson against local farms. Three separate farms have been attacked, and three barns full of hay and other buildings and machinery have been destroyed.
Anti-hunt activists also go far beyond mere protest on some occasions. In my constituency, they tried to dig up the grave of the late Duke of Beaufort, which is only a few yards from his family home, not long after his funeral. I regard that as disgraceful, and I am sure that every hon. Member would agree. I mention that incident only to

show the lengths to which some people will go, and not because I think that any hon. Member would condone such activities.
If some people were given even the ghost of a chance, they would be prepared to try to twist the wording of any Act of Parliament—whatever the intentions of the promoters—and chance their luck in court if they thought they could damage legitimate field sports. It is not acceptable to me that the lives and the jobs of my constituents who are farmers, fox hunters or both should be subject to that.
However, it would also be wrong for the House to accept a Bill if its wording was vague enough to be the subject of argument in court about its intention. Sometimes, of course, that can happen accidentally, and we all know the difficulties of drafting from our experience in the House. However, the courts would have to decide a case by trying to dig out a precise meaning from ambiguous wording, not on the objective merits of the issue. If we accepted a vaguely worded Bill, that would be a dereliction of our duty as legislators, and would not be the right way in which to make the law of the land.
However, the hon. Member for Mansfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, in their discussions, have made great efforts, with expert advisers from both sides of the argument, to achieve a satisfactory wording that would protect wild mammals from the cruelties that have been listed and described so graphically without damaging legitimate, properly conducted field sports and agricultural activities. I am reassured that a wide range of legal expertise has been brought to bear on the drafting of the Bill to achieve those aims. I welcome the agreement that has been reached and is expressed in the wording of the Bill.
On that basis, and with those reassurances, I support the Bill, and I am glad to help to advance protection for wild mammals.

Mr. John McFall: I am delighted that, within 12 months of my Bill, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill, receiving—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) mentioned—almost the largest majority for a Private Member's Bill in the history of Parliament, he has taken up the issue and ensured the current Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill a Second Reading.
The Bill has massive support throughout the country. A MORI poll showed that 90 per cent. of the public favoured the 1995 Bill, but it stood little chance of getting through Parliament. Given that glaring cruelty is still occurring in the country, I felt that it would be worthwhile, if possible, to obtain some measure of agreement so that, for the first time, a wild mammals Bill could he passed.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends for their support in reaching that goal, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for his generosity in promoting the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) who, throughout the discussions on my Bill last year, and during the past few weeks, has been straight and direct about the intentions of the British Field Sports Society and others. He deserves our


thanks for that. The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) served on last year's Committee and willingly helped to find points on which we could agree.
My Bill was number seven in last year's ballot, and stood little chance of going into Committee. Ultimately, less than a week before the expiry date for the Bill's Report stage in the House, I found a free slot for my Bill in Committee. That meant that the House had two days to examine the Bill. Hon. Members from both sides of the House put their heads together to find something everyone could accept. The then Minister had the support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Home Office. In that time, we came up with what we thought was agreeable wording. The Bill was amended in the other place, however, and its chance of success was therefore limited.
I think that the public feel that the rules of the House of Commons are rather anachronistic, and perhaps a bit antique because my Bill needed only to be subject to effective orders and for its title to be read out in a few seconds for it to be passed by Parliament. Alas, that did not happen. I was determined, as a result of the many thousands of letters of support that I received, that the Bill would eventually become an Act. Hon. Members therefore deserve to be congratulated on that success.
The right hon. Member for Northavon mentioned the Bill's purpose. Since the landmark case of Pepper v. Hart of 1992, the courts and lawyers have been able to understand the intentions of Parliament. Our intentions will be made clear in this debate: to put legislation on wild mammals on the statute book for the first time, and to outlaw wanton acts of cruelty. That is the sum and the substance of our intentions.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend puts the case very well. Is he aware that tens of thousands of people were outraged by the acts in the other place, which virtually sabotaged his Bill and raised serious question marks about the role of the other place—

Mr. Peter Bottomley: We do not need to go over all that.

Mr. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the current Bill? It reflects the good work that he has done, with support from both sides of the House—in spite of the sedentary comment just now. Will he join me in wishing good speed to the Bill, and agree that, if it is blocked in the same way at a later date, there will be further outrage out there, and that the people who block it will not be forgiven?

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not want to spoil a good party this morning.

Sir John Cope: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) is right to mention the case of Pepper v. Hart. That was a tax case, and I can never remember whether Pepper or Hart was the tax inspector, and the other one was a schoolteacher. It was an extremely important case, which is why I attach great importance to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the intentions of the Bill, and which I set out.
I think that last year's activities in the other place have been misrepresented. I do not want to refight the battle in detail, but some important issues were raised there. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world—as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged—we had not foreseen all the snags in the last-minute drafting of the Bill at this end of the Corridor. I believe that those in the other place made some sound points, which have been taken account of in the Bill, and which I hope will not cause further difficulties.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) continues, I should tell the House that this morning's interventions, though interesting, are getting rather lengthy. The House will know that I appreciate short interventions. While passing reference may be made to other Bills and actions, this is a Second Reading, to which primary attention should be directed.

Mr. McFall: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to know that I am taking the statesman's route this morning, and I will not focus on other issues. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments—

Mr. Paul Boateng: I am not obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker, to take the statesman's route, and do not hesitate to be a party-pooper. No one should be under any doubt—I hope that the right hon. Member (Sir J. Cope) will agree with me—that many hon. Members are absolutely opposed to the abominable cruelties that are associated with field sports, and we look to this Bill to deal with them. There should be no doubt in the minds of the promoters of the Bill that many us are here to ensure that that happens. Those cruelties should be brought to an end.

Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with the thrust of his comments, but I should like to see the Bill secure a successful passage today. We can then go on to debate the issues that surround blood supports.
I have mentioned the all-party support in the House. We also have all-party support throughout the country. A Scottish politician, Baillie John Young, a Conservative who has been in regular contact with me about this issue, said that he supported my original Bill, and that he would continue to support similar Bills. One of my Bill's strongest supporters was Diane Wilson, a Conservative who is involved in the Somerset anti-blood sports group. There has been tremendous support throughout the country for the provisions of my original Bill and today's Bill.
The reason for the support is that the public are perplexed by the 85-year wait, since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, for provisions to protect wild mammals. It was not only an anomaly but a glaring omission that an individual who had a pet fox and maltreated it could be prosecuted, while an individual who maltreated a wild fox could not be prosecuted. I believe, as do many of my hon. Friends who have contributed to this debate, that this matter one of social reform.
Last year, in the Second Reading debate, I mentioned "Roads to Ruin", by E. S. Turner, in which he dealt with a number of issues. He told of another book that was


about torture, and which was dedicated to the chief of the imperial general staff. He wrote that, many years ago, some in the House argued that it would not be a good idea to abolish the jobs of chimney boys, because that would endanger country houses. Thankfully, we have moved on since those times, but I view this issue in the same context as those which were debated 100 years ago.
The Bill reflects a feeling that has been running through British society for 150 years. We are on the verge of passing the Bill this morning because of the dedicated work that has been done throughout the country for those 150 years. We stand on the shoulders of social reformers throughout the ages. If the Bill receives passage through the House this morning, I can guarantee that many hundreds of thousands of British people will be happier for it.
On Second Reading of my Bill last year, I said that this sort of provision should be on the statute book before we enter the new millennium. There are many reasons for that, not least that it is only by securing such legislation that we can call ourselves a truly civilised society. We are taking the first step down that road today, and I think that the public will gain succour from the fact that, for the first time in Parliament's history, there is genuine harmony in the Chamber this morning for passing legislation to protect wild mammals.

Mr. James Couchman: I shall not detain the House for long, but, like the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), I should like to refer to history. For some time I was the co-licensee of a public house called The Castle in Cowcross street near Smithfield market. Two hundred years ago Smithfield was the centre of all sorts of rumbustious and nefarious activities, not least because it was the national centre for cock fighting, bear baiting and dog fighting.
The Castle is unique in that it holds two licences. The Prince Regent came to Smithfield for the cock fighting in those days. He lost all of his money on the first two fights and repaired to the nearest tavern where he was able to persuade the landlord that his watch was worth a few guineas. He then returned to bet on the other fights. The watch was redeemed by a palace courtier the following morning and The Castle in Cowcross street was granted a pawnbroker's licence in perpetuity.
We have come a long way since cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting—or have we? I understand that those unpleasant activities continue to flourish in certain parts of the country. I appreciate that today we are discussing wild mammals rather than domestic animals, but I shall relate one of the first constituency cases that I dealt with when I was elected to this place in 1983. It concerned a young gentleman who put his puppy in the oven and roasted it alive. That puppy could easily have been a hedgehog, a rabbit or another wild animal and it is incredibly sad that some people continue to indulge in those sorts of activities. One has only to read clause 1 of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) to realise how many forms of torture and unpleasant activities people inflict upon wild animals.
I have no hesitation supporting my guv'nor in the parliamentary beer club, the hon. Member for Mansfield—he is chairman to my vice-chairmanship of that excellent organisation—in his attempts to bring the

law regarding wild mammals into line with that which presently prevails for domestic animals through the Protection of Animals Act 1911. I support the Bill.

Mr. Eric Clarke: As a sponsor of the Bill, I stress the need for legislation to protect wild animals. I am a fisherman—there is no conflict of interest—and, as I travel around the country, I see wild animals in their natural habitats. We must have the will to pass legislation to protect wild animals and Members of Parliament would be very foolish to ignore that fact.
I receive a tremendous amount of correspondence from my constituents—particularly from young people—after the screening of television programmes about cruelty of any kind to any wild animal, including whales or dolphins. My postbag is always full on those occasions. The people are telling us that they desire this type of legislation and I believe that we would be very foolish as politicians and as humanitarians to ignore them.
I do not go as far as some who use violence to protect domestic and farm animals. Such people seem to think that it is all right to stick it to the police and others and to use violence in support of their cause. I do not believe that the use of violence is justified. One must put across one's point of view democratically and peacefully. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on introducing the legislation and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on raising the issue originally.
We are judged as a nation according to how we treat our children and our animals. I think that that is how it should be. If we have detailed legislation to protect youngsters and other vulnerable people, we should have legislation to protect wild animals also. I hope that the spirit of co-operation in the House this morning will be accepted and that there will be no recriminations or awkwardness at this stage.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I take this opportunity to confirm the Government's very strong support for the aims of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill. The Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), seeks to add to the protections that exist already for certain animals and certain habitats and to fill an existing gap while protecting pest control and legitimate agricultural practices.
My Whip's training tells me that Fridays are not the time for Front Bench interventions, so I shall be brief. I shall make two points. First, I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said: it is a sad reflection on our society that such a Bill is necessary. It is disappointing that a despicable minority of people are prepared to commit acts of cruelty against animals and it is appropriate that the Bill introduces imprisonment as the penalty for committing such acts. Those who are thinking of behaving in that way should be made well aware of that fact.
Secondly, I pay tribute to the two sides of the argument. There are very firmly held views about matters close to the Bill and there have been negotiations between those who represent the interests of agriculture, the British Field Sports Society and the Royal Society for the Prevention


of Cruelty to Animals. It is a tribute to all concerned that they have managed to achieve a consensus which I hope that the House will accept. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) for their work in negotiating with the hon. Member for Mansfield to agree the text of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you appreciate better than anyone that we are a nation of animal lovers. The Bill reflects that fact and it is a credit to the House that we are witnessing the proceedings today.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I must state at the outset that I receive research assistance from the political animal lobby. I do not believe that that is relevant to the debate, but I make that point clear.
I begin by echoing the Minister's comments: it is a sad reflection on our society that a measure of this kind is necessary. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is long overdue. It enjoys the overwhelming support of the people of this country, and that is why I, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) from the shadow Home Office team, give it our full support.
I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) who have brought forward similar measures and who have advanced the campaign to ensure that there is protection for wild animals. I was privileged to be a sponsor of all three of those Bills, which were supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They were also supported by all the main animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports, which have given considerable technical advice.
Despite all that support and advice, however—and the drafting help given by the Minister's private office—the Bill should be seen as only a first step in the removal of anomalies connected with the protection of wild animals. It would have been better if it had been based on the wording of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which is tried and tested and has served animal welfare organisations very well when they have brought prosecutions relating to cruelty to domestic and captive animals.
The Bill's wording is not based on that of the 1911 Act, because the Act includes the words "torture" and "mistreat", which were not acceptable to the pro-blood sports lobby, including the British Field Sports Society. A justification of the society's attitude, contained in a briefing, is completely unconvincing. In fact, it would not accept the wording because, if a case involving dogs being set on other animals were brought to court, those responsible would almost certainly lose. That explodes the myth that setting dogs on other animals for entertainment is a humane form of pest control.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Bill should have been based

on the Protection of Animals Act 1911. It should be noted that the word "animals" rather than the word "mammals" appears in the title of that Act. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage an extension to cover wild birds and fish?

Mr. Morley: The Opposition have no argument with angling or, indeed, responsible shooting. Clearly, if the 1911 Act were amended, it would have to be amended in a number of ways to take that point into account, and also to take into account the legitimate needs of farming and pest control. Nevertheless, it would not have been difficult to amend the Act along those lines. We would then have benefited from a form of words that has been well tested in law.
The British Field Sports Society's conversion to support for a measure to protect wild mammals is a com-paratively recent enlightenment on the road to Damascus. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) shakes his head, but a leaflet distributed by the society at the time of the last general election, entitled
Will your sport be safe after the next election?",
states:
Fact three: Labour's plan for a bill to protect wild mammals is pure window dressing to create an opportunity for a free vote on hunting. There is no need for a new law. Since 1911 it has been an offence to cause suffering to a captive wild animal.
That ignores the facts: the Bill deals with wild mammals. Nevertheless, I suppose that we should be grateful for late conversions to the cause.
Although we believe that the Bill does not go far enough, it is welcome. For the first time, bodies such as the RSPCA will be allowed to take action against acts of gratuitous violence and cruelty to wild animals. We have heard a number of examples today. Hedgehogs seem to be prime victims, perhaps because they are common in densely populated areas. For some reason, there seem to have been some particularly bad cases in my region. A hedgehog in Hull was painted with spray paint, whereupon its spines fell out; in Pocklington, north Humberside, youths used a hedgehog as a football. They were taken to court, but the prosecution failed because there was no protection in law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has given me a petition organised by a Mrs. Blyth from the hedgehog care centre in Cleethorpes, which calls for this legislation because of the increasing number of cases of cruelty. I have also received a lengthy petition organised by a Mrs. Duran in Oxford.
Anomalies still exist. For example, it will be illegal to set a dog on a captive fox—and rightly so—but the Bill will not deal with the cruelty of sending terriers underground when a fox is trapped. That will still be legal.

Mr. Boateng: Not for much longer.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right there.
The public will be puzzled by the difference between the way in which captive and wild foxes are treated. We shall, however, have an opportunity to return to the subject of cruelty associated with blood sports, and I accept that this is not the occasion on which to discuss such matters. For the moment, let me repeat that we welcome the Bill and the measure of agreement that has been reached, and hope that the legislation will complete its passage through the House of Lords without further


amendment. It is a better Bill now: the Bill that came to us from the other place was a mess. Although I concede that there were anomalies in the original legislation, some of the Lords amendments were unhelpful and some were downright stupid—especially the one relating to beating, which would have wrecked the purpose of the Bill.
I know that there is widespread support in and, particularly, outside the House for measures to protect wild mammals from deliberate cruelty. Although the effect of the Bill will be limited, it will enable action to be taken against the appalling people who inflict cruelty on wild mammals.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this civilised debate, whose tone was set by the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). What they said reflected the manner in which we have conducted negotiations over the past few months.
Let me declare my interest as chairman of the British Field Sports Society, which is recognised as the unifying body for political lobbying on behalf of all country sports. It represents the views and interests of hundreds of thousands of people of all political persuasions. In the present climate, I should also declare that the appointment is unpaid.
I welcome the Bill. It is a carefully targeted, sensible animal welfare measure that will help to prevent cruelty, and it will be strongly supported by the public. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield not only on his good fortune in securing the debate, but on his wisdom in introducing the Bill in this form. I am grateful to him for the trouble that he took in consulting me so that an agreed, workable measure, acceptable to those in the countryside, could be presented.
For the last 100 years, every piece of animal welfare legislation has been passed by the House on the basis of political consensus. That is a proud record, and the hon. Gentleman has been wise to follow it. Real progress has been made, because all of us who genuinely care about animal welfare were prepared to put aside our differences and identify the common ground represented in the Bill.
We have dwelt to some extent on the history of the matter, but a few points are worth recording. If the Bill had been introduced in its present form in the last Session and had been sponsored by the hon. Member for Dumbarton, it would now be on the statute book. It was clearly unwise to couple such measures with clauses to abolish hunting and attack shooting. We could never have accepted the Bill in that form, and its fate should have been perfectly obvious to anyone.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton and I did everything that we could to secure an agreed Bill after he dropped the anti-country sports measures at the eleventh hour. Unfortunately, there were real flaws in his Bill, as the other place soon pointed out. I am afraid that the drafting efforts of the hon. Gentleman and me, assisted by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), were found to be defective—perhaps we would not make a very good firm of lawyers; hence the amendments that were tabled in another place.
My noble Friend Lord Mancroft needs absolutely no protection, but the hon. Member for Dumbarton said that my noble Friend tabled vexatious amendments in the

other place. I absolutely refute that. The other place did its traditional job extremely well, and the expertise there was represented in the tabled amendments, which were accepted by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in that House. As a result, we ended up with a much better considered Bill.
It is a matter of history that, despite the joint efforts of the hon. Member for Dumbarton and me, it was simply not possible within the procedural framework to have those amendments considered here. However, if the amendments had not been sound, we would not now be considering a Bill that, to a large extent, incorporates all those amendments.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to my right hon. Friend at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to officials for all their help to ensure that the Bill was as near perfect as we could make it. It would be remiss of me not to pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), who, in his typically sound, able and measured way, played an important part in the negotiations with the hon. Member for Mansfield and the RSPCA, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).
Since the passing of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, Parliament has passed a succession of specific measures to outlaw particular forms of cruelty to wild animals. For instance—this is in direct contradiction to what the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe maintains—the gin trap and self-locking snares have been abolished, and the gassing of some species has been outlawed with the support of the BFSS. There are other examples. Field sports are regulated under the game laws as well as by their own codes of conduct. If we want to deal with a specific form of cruelty, we should do it in the established way—incrementally and by consensus. The Bill falls into the category of sensible animal welfare as opposed to measures that are pursued by the animal rights lobby. It thus deserves to succeed.
I once again express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Mansfield for making it clear in the Bill and in his speech that, despite his personal views and those of his sponsors, of whom we saw a glimpse today, the Bill is not intended to attack country sports, pest control or farming activities. His reassurance may be a watershed in the ending of single issue politics on rural issues. He now rightly expects, as I do, that the Bill will have a fair wind through the House and, I hope, in another place.
The hon. Gentleman has spent many hours discussing the measure with us. Legal advisers from the RSPCA and the British Field Sports Society have worked together with the common aim of producing good and workable legislation. This is an excellent day for the House of Commons and for wildlife, and I wish the Bill well.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: In principle, one of the most elegant pieces of English law based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic is the duty of care. We owe a duty of care to each other, and this place has a duty of care to its citizens. In that context we cannot rule out the duty of care that we as mammals ourselves owe to other mammals. The Bill is long overdue.
How times change. John Evelyn recorded that just 300 years ago in 1690 in a debate in this very place a Bill failed to become law by just 10 votes because the majority


of hon. Members were away watching a pack of dogs baiting a tiger just two miles down the road. The situation has changed, although, sadly, it has not changed enough. Hon. Members have spoken about the way in which some hedgehogs and other animals have been treated. It is extraordinary that human beings can behave in that way towards other animals. It is almost as if they are psychopathic and have no empathy of feeling for other living creatures.
It is sad that it has taken so long for the Bill to come to the House, because the present law is riddled with loopholes. A hedgehog or a fox when kept as a pet is protected by law, but the same animals in the wild can be cruelly treated or tortured. The Bill will ensure that that cannot happen in future.
I noticed with a little distress that clause 7 of the Bill, which I hope will become an Act, cannot apply to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) could explain why that is the case.

Mr. Meale: It is quite simply that Scotland and Northern Ireland are covered by other Acts, and have to be dealt with by those mechanisms. Hopefully, the Bill's provisions will be repeated in the appropriate Acts.

Mr. Fabricant: If the Bill becomes law, I hope that the will of the House will be seen to be clear, and that a mechanism can he contrived, which happens if the will is there, to see that the Bill's provisions apply to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That was an interesting exchange, and perhaps we could return to it on Committee. I think that the only requirement would be to find in Northern Ireland legislation words that are equivalent to those in clause 3.

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, which was as helpful as ever. If he is correct, it seems that there is no impediment to the Bill covering Northern Ireland.
As hon. Members have said, there is considerable public feeling in favour of the Bill. I have received many letters in my constituency, particularly from people in Lichfield, supporting it. A few months ago, the RSPCA conducted a survey which showed that some 94 per cent. of the population—I am surprised that the percentage is so low—are keen to see the Bill in force.
In the past, the police have tried to take offenders to court for wanton cruelty to wild animals. The RSPCA has dealt with cases involving hedgehogs being burnt, beaten and impaled on sticks, and of live fox cubs being nailed to trees or set alight with petrol.
As I said, I cannot believe that people behave in that way. What sort of minds they must have that they treat other living creatures in that manner. Prosecutions have failed because of the many loopholes in the law. I am pleased that political correctness and political dogma have been overcome to enable the Bill to come to the Floor of the House.
We all owe one another a duty of care. If we, as human beings, fail to accept that that duty extends also to the animal kingdom, it does not serve the human race well. Nor does it serve the human race well that it has taken so long for the Bill to come to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the Bill, not least because it is based on the concept of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) said, for 100 years, all measures in the House to protect animals have been based on consensus. That is the British way—the sensible way. This Bill will pass into law because it recognises that, in a free society, progress affecting the rights of minorities has to be based on consent.
The Bill last year, sponsored by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), was doomed to failure, because it sought to ride roughshod over that principle. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has told us today that the Bill is merely a first step, but the League Against Cruel Sports will, I suspect and hope, ultimately fail, because it seeks to criminalise the activities of hundreds of thousands of decent, law-abiding people. That is why there is an internal crisis and a sense of frustration in the league, and why I suspect that the Bill is the work more of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals than the league.

Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to many people why, under the Bill and existing law, it is illegal to set dogs on a tame fox, but why—even under the Bill—it will still be legal to set dogs on a wild fox?

Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because I was coming to that matter.
James Barrington, the league's executive director, who has just been forced out by the extremists, sought to raise that point. He dared to suggest—as, apparently, the Bill, by its uncontroversial nature, suggests—that field sportsmen are perhaps respectable members of society with rights and views that need to be taken into account. He suggested simply that, if terrier work were abandoned by hunts, they could enjoy greater public recognition, and that the league could conceivably change its attitude towards them. I personally have some sympathy with that view. It may be a compromise that is worth investigating.
No doubt Mr. Barrington is right in saying—or perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is right in saying—that the case against hunting would be even weaker if terrier work were banned, although no doubt the hon. Gentleman and others would go on suggesting that hunting should still be banned. I should like to know his view on that point.

Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in the preparation of the Bill, there has been equal partnership: equal advice has been given by the RSPCA and the League Again Cruel Sports. My advisers during the preparation of the Bill have been someone from the RSPCA and John Bryant from the League Against Cruel Sports.
I urge the hon. Gentleman not to dwell on the background of an industrial incident at the league because I know some of the background of that matter, which will be decided outside this place at an industrial tribunal. My impression is that I think the league was correct in what it did.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the debate continues, may I make the point that we are debating the


Second Reading of the Bill, and that, although passing reference may be made to other issues that bear on it, we must not become diverted from the main purpose.

Mr. Leigh: I am happy to leave Mr. James Barrington—I have made that point. The Bill recognises what should be a cardinal feature of our debates: in a free society, we cannot suddenly legislate away in a private Members' time on a wet Friday afternoon rights that have existed since time immemorial. At the very least, a Government would need to be elected with such a provision in their manifesto. Perhaps a referendum would be required. It is interesting that the Labour party, which could take that course, chooses not to do so. It recognises, as we all do, that this is primarily a moral and not a political issue.
Do I then argue that, in a pluralist and liberal society, which, like everyone else here today, I support, people should be allowed to do exactly what they like? Of course not, which is why I support the Bill, and why we will all allow it to go through. People should not be allowed to derive gratuitous pleasure simply from torturing animals. I suspect that only a small minority do so, and I know of no respectable field sportsmen who derive such pleasure from any pain inflicted on animals.
There is another point. If, for some extraordinary reason, hunting with dogs had never been invented, it would have to be invented now, because sometimes it is not possible to control pests without dogs. Hunting, shooting and fishing as sports have been a feature of rural life for centuries. In those circumstances, it is neither morally right nor feasible to criminalise something undertaken every weekend by millions of people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my previous guidance. We must consider what is contained in the Bill rather than do a general survey of other matters that, although they may be related, are not in the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: I am happy to take your guidance on that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth saying, however—this is the point that I really wanted to make in my few remarks—that, if we are going to make any progress in these matters, as I believe we have to, we must recognise that there are people in this country who have alternative views.

Mr. McFall: As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman has not taken part in any negotiations on either my Bill or this Bill, unlike the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope). Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is coming across as shrill, partisan and out of keeping with the tone of this morning's debate, when we have focused solely on the issue of animal welfare. It would do the hon. Gentleman good to take a leaf out of the book of hon. Members debating the issue this morning.

Mr. Leigh: I am simply making the point that the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon have said, is a watershed, because it recognises that, when we are dealing with matters affecting city and countryside, we have to proceed with consent.
Like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who has moved the Second Reading, I was fortunate to come near the top of the private Members' ballot some years ago, and I introduced a Bill on footpaths. I was careful then to gain advice from the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and ramblers' organisations. That Bill became law—I think that it was the first Bill on footpaths to become law for many years—because it was based on consent.
The point that needs to be made is that, if we are going to make any progress in these matters, we must realise that there are differing opinions, that a large number of people hold strong views, and that we can make progress only on the basis of consensus. The hon. Member for Dumbarton did not recognise that with the proposals that he included in the Bill he introduced last year.
I see from the hon. Member for Mansfield today a realistic determination and understanding of our procedures, and a determination to achieve a Bill that becomes law. I hope that our proceedings this morning are a portent for the future, and that what happened last year and in 1992 will not be repeated. If it were, there would be a rather arid stand-off between two opposing and strongly held views.
However much the hon. Member for Dumbarton may disagree with some of my points, I am sure that he recognises that people who hunt, shoot or fish have a valid point of view that should be respected. They are part of the countryside. The hon. Gentleman is here to support the Bill, which does not affect the rights of those people. Indeed, it is based on the traditional British way of debate, compromise and consensus. That is why it will become law, and why I support it and wish it well.
I hope that, when the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe considers these matters in the coming months, he will draw some conclusions from this debate. If there were to be a Labour Government, I hope that he would take the view that these matters are better dealt with by private Members' legislation. If such Bills are to become law, the proceedings must be by consent. It would be intolerable if a Labour Government, not having included these matters in their manifesto, were then to change the traditional ways in which Parliament deals with them, by, for example, providing extra time to allow a Bill banning hunting to become law.
However, from what the hon. Gentleman said today and the measured tones he used, I think that he recognises that, in a free, pluralistic society, we have to proceed by consent, and that we need to conduct these debates on the rights of animals and country sports in a civilised way. We all recognise that animals do not have rights because they do not have duties, but we have a duty of care to them.
That duty is different for different animals in different sets of circumstances. For example, Labour Members may believe that they have to poison a wild rat because it is the only way to kill it. The rat may die a painful death, but it is the only way to deal with that pest. However, if somebody poisoned a domestic rat, he would justifiably attract the attention of the RSPCA. Animals do not have rights in the way that human beings do, and they should not he equated with human beings. Nevertheless, we have a responsibility not to mistreat, torture or harm them in any way.

Mr. Fabricant: Is not it a strange irony that, while we debate this issue, there are traps set to poison rats in the Palace of Westminster and other parliamentary buildings such as Norman Shaw North.

Mr. Leigh: No doubt such traps are felt to be necessary.
I find it extraordinary that the Bill contains nothing about cruelty to fish. Perhaps it would contravene the anglers charter—

Mr. McFall: Focus on the Bill.

Mr. Leigh: I am. This is a Second Reading debate, and I am entitled to speak on what is in the Bill. I am amazed that something of great interest to so many people is not included. Perhaps there are good political reasons why the Labour party does not wish to offend the millions of people who go fishing every weekend.

Mr. McFall: My tummy churns when I hear the son of Baroness Thatcher talking about consensus—something that was missing from all the Bills that have littered the past 15 years. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, come off it.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman obviously needs educating. It is true that we cannot always proceed by consensus, unless the Bill affects the rights of minorities—not small minorities either, because they encompass millions of people who have enjoyed certain rights for hundreds of years or even from time immemorial. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, when dealing with the rights of those minorities, we should proceed by coercion, that would be a dangerous principle, and the House should not countenance it.
I may be wrong, but I cannot recall Lady Thatcher introducing legislation that affected the deeply held views and rights of minorities—[Laughter.] I shall be happy to give way to any hon. Member who can give an example.

Mr. Meale: I could mention trade unions, but I want to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the Bill, which has a consensus. I want us to proceed, so that we can get the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Leigh: It is only 10.55 am. I understand that this debate can continue until 2.30 pm. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to speak until then—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman tried to do so, I would have to remind him not to be repetitive, and to keep to the subject matter.

Mr. Leigh: I shall be happy to keep to the subject matter, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The House can be at its most dangerous when hon. Members are being polite to each other. It creates dangerous legislation, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act. I sometimes feel that, on a Friday morning, I am the little hit of grit in the oyster, out of which a pearl of truth can come. We all know what is happening in the real world. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said, unless the Bill is carefully drafted, some violently inclined people might use a weakly drafted clause to attack the traditional pursuits of millions of people.
I understand the difficulty of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. The only logical point of view is that taken by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) and my right hon.

Friend the Member for Northavon—that we should ban gratuitous torture but not affect the rights of people to conduct themselves in the way that they have always done. The other view, which is taken by such people as Mr. Bryant, who is now the chief spokesman for the League Against Cruel Sports, is that all hunting, fishing, shooting, and any sport involving animals, is wrong.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is being hypocritical, and he knows it. He tried to skirt around the issues and say that the Bill was a first step. If he were honest, he would admit that he is opposed to angling, shooting, hunting and all the rest. However, he knows that he could not get away with that politically—

Mr. Morley: I am sorry that we seem to be going down this road, but as the hon. Gentleman is attacking both my position and the Labour party's agenda, I must put the record straight. The Labour party is committed to a free vote on the abolition of fox hunting, hare coursing and stag hunting. We will put that matter to all Members of the House of Commons, recognising the moral dimension.
On a personal note, I will always argue that there is a moral and philosophical difference between shooting and fishing and those sports that involve inflicting prolonged pain and stress on animals for no reason other than entertainment. This is not the place to argue those differences, but I am prepared to do so with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I must point out that, although a fair degree of tolerance is given at Second Reading to discussion about what is or is not in the Bill, we cannot have a general discussion unrelated—or becoming unrelated—to the Bill itself. I offer that as guidance—very strong guidance.

Mr. Leigh: It would be a very brave hon. Member who tried to ignore your strong guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would never seek to do so. Your point has been made.
I wish the Bill well, and I hope that we will learn lessons from this morning. If there is a Labour Government and a free vote on the issue transpires, I hope that the House abides by the tradition of dealing with such matters in private Members' time—the way we have always dealt with them. We must ensure that minorities and their views—which may well be minority views, but are valid for all that—are protected by the House of Commons.

11 am

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The chances of that happening are slender. The chances of a Labour Government are not as great as some people may think, and the chances—if there were such a Government—of Labour leaving a private Member's Bill to find its own way to the dustbin are limited as well. But, as has been rightly said by most hon. Members, that is not what today's Second Reading debate is about.
I join in the tributes to the hon. Members for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and the compliments paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for


Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). It seems to me that we are back in the positive mood that existed in Committee in July. I had hoped at that time that a number of us had helped to create the conditions in which it would be possible for hon. Members to get what they agreed on through both Houses. Sadly, that did not happen.
When a case of deliberate cruelty to a wild animal came forward, people were shocked and horrified to discover that it is possible to torture a wild animal without committing a criminal offence. Essentially, the Bill's first clause proposes that those who deliberately torture a wild animal will suffer the same penalties if brought to a court and convicted as if they had tortured any other animal, and I welcome that.
I did have one question about why birds were left out of the measure, although they may be included in other legislation.

Mr. Morley: indicated assent.

Mr. Bottomley: I understand from the hon. Gentleman that birds are dealt with elsewhere.
Everyone is saying that they expect that Parliament—albeit following a delay of a year—will pass the measure that was rightly brought before the House a year ago by the hon. Member for Dumbarton. I have raised the question of how to deal with Northern Ireland issues, but it might be sensible for the Bill to receive its Second and Third Readings in the House first, and then perhaps the Government could consult people in Northern Ireland to find the best way of making sure that any anomaly is blocked there in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Sir James Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning my part of the United Kingdom. There would be two methods of introducing the provisions in Northern Ireland. First, the Bill could be amended at a later stage to include Northern Ireland. After all, the exclusion of Scotland from two particular aspects of the Bill produces rather more real exclusions than could possibly apply in the case of Northern Ireland. Secondly, there could be a fallback position. If we were so inclined and thought it desirable, the Bill could be extended to Northern Ireland by the negative resolution order.

Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his positive suggestions. I hope that those dealing with the Bill, both here and in another place,

will be able to consult the Government and the interests in Northern Ireland to find a way forward. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, as most of us would expect, there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland that the provisions of the Bill should extend there as soon as possible, and in the same way as they apply to the rest of the UK.
The Bill rightly does not try to deal with other issues of concern. Clearly, there is disagreement in the House and in the country about country sports. In Committee last year, I stated that I would not go along with the abolition of fox hunting or attempts to do so, but that is not an issue for us today. I should, incidentally, declare my involvement with the International Fund for Animal Welfare, although that is presently an honorary association.
It would not be right for the Bill to deal with some of the crying shames in the European Union. I hope that other European countries come to understand that veal-crate breeding should be abolished, as that would solve the terrible problem of exporting calves for fattening in veal crates—a practice forbidden in this country.
There are a number of other issues, but I shall put them together: town and country; Labour and Tory; all those without political affiliation who care for Parliament's provisions to prevent deliberate cruelty to wild animals; they all want to see the Bill succeed. I am grateful to the voluntary organisations such as the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others for keeping the issues alive at a time when Parliament is not as concerned as it should be with taking action that will have broad support in the country. I hope that Bill has a better fate than its predecessor, and I pay tribute to those who have pushed it forward so far.

Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the House, and the only thing left to do is put the matter to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Meale.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Chair customarily deprecates a Committee stage being taken without notice, especially in a case where a Bill has been recently published.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Employment (Homeworkers) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am glad of this unexpected opportunity to present a Bill on an important issue—the rights of one of the most neglected groups of workers in these islands, namely, home workers—and thank the National Group on Homeworking for its support in drawing up the Bill and campaigning for it.
I realise that the prospects of getting a "behind-the-Chair Bill", as they are called in this place, on to the statute book must be limited—indeed, as limited as time is today. I hope, however, that we can get the issue on to the agenda by virtue of this short debate, and I particularly hope that the Government will produce a Minister to listen to it—I am glad to see an instant Minister appear. I hope to secure indications from him that the Government are prepared to take the issues seriously and to make progress on them. I would also like the Bill to go into Committee, where we could explore the issues in greater depth. I thank hon. Members from every party in the House who signed early-day motion 335, calling for progress with the Bill.
Some people will ask why a Plaid Cymru Member of Parliament has introduced such a Bill. Hon. Members know that social issues have always been high on our agenda. At our conference this year, we were lobbied on the topic, and we promised to do everything we could to help those who are concerned with it.
In Wales, 69,000 people are identified as home workers and, according to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, in 1991 there were 6,210 home workers in Mid Glamorgan, of whom 2,180 were identified as manual workers and 1,020 as intermediate and junior non-manual—in other words, way over half the total number of home workers were clearly employees. In my county of Gwynedd, more than 9,000 people were identified as home workers in 1991; two thirds of those may well be self-employed, but a substantial group fall into the category of employees.
Social justice has always ranked high on the list of political priorities in Wales—across party lines. This issue is a cause for concern for people, not only in Wales but in all parts of these islands. When we get our own Parliament in Wales, this is the sort of legislation that we will most certainly want to put on the statute book. I hope that some progress will arise from today's debate.
Who are the home workers towards whose plight the Bill is addressed? It is estimated that about 1.25 million people in the United Kingdom are paid to work in their own homes. About half those may be classified as self-employed, but nearly 700,000 work under the control of an outside employer and are known as home workers or sometimes as out-workers. They are mainly, but not exclusively, women and they work from their own home for a combination of reasons—mainly because they desperately need the money on which to live and cannot go out to work because of family responsibilities, usually young children and sometimes disabled or elderly relatives. In the larger cities and conurbations, many home workers are from the ethnic minority communities.
Home workers do a range of work, including assembly work for manufacturing industry, sewing and knitting work for the clothing industry, routine clerical and processing work, which increasingly includes data processing, and telecottaging. Home workers even manufacture Christmas crackers, for which the pay rate is abominably low.
We need to differentiate between a home worker, who is dependent on an outside employer for the work, and a genuinely self-employed person, who controls for him or herself critical aspects of the working pattern. In differentiating, there are large grey areas of definition. I must impress on the Minister that those are the areas to which I shall return, and that is why I regard the Bill, or a Bill along these lines, as necessary.
One aspect of the problem with which the Bill deals is that of definition and the plight facing many thousands of people who, while they are clearly dependent workers and not self-employed in any normal meaning of the term, are not treated as employees because of the interpretation of the law—although, if the work they do were done in a factory or an office and not in their homes, it would most certainly lead to their being categorised as employees. As a result, they suffer from the problems, frustrations and difficulties that arise from working at home: low pay, unfair remuneration systems, the unreliability of the supply of work, unreasonable deadlines, inappropriate working conditions, bad lighting and bad seating, and the lack of health and safety advice.
There are the dangers to health, not only for the workers but for their families, the lack of employee rights, training for the job and adequate supervision, and the lack of national insurance cover, which partly arises from the low pay. Their legal status is uncertain—investigations have shown that, while a third of home workers are clearly self-employed and another third may clearly be defined as employees, a third are acknowledged as being in a grey area. Finally, many home workers feel isolated. They have no one to whom to turn for help and advice.
Clearly, the Bill cannot solve all those problems, but it tries to deal with some. Home workers fall between the two stools of employee and self-employed. In consequence, they can face enormous deprivations. They suffer financially because of payment levels, which in some instances can be described only as scandalous. They suffer from an absence of legal rights, which they would have by virtue of employment law if they were properly recognised as employees. They suffer dangers, and would be protected under health and safety at work legislation if they were doing the same work in a factory. They miss out on entitlements that they would get under the national insurance system, if they earned enough to be above the lower threshold for contributions and were properly registered for national insurance purposes.
I must dwell on the financial plight of these people—not that the Bill can directly overcome that problem, but it can help indirectly. I shall give the House some examples. The National Group on Homeworking produced a valuable report in 1994, written by Ursula Huws, who is a leading worker in the area—her work is widely acknowledged, including, I believe, by the Government.
The report is entitled "Home Truths" and is based on a detailed survey. It shows that most home workers are paid on a piece-rate basis. The average weekly pay was found


to be £46 two years ago and the average hourly rate was £1.28.Only 15 per cent. of home workers got more than £70 a week and 35 per cent. were earning less than £30.
The report gives graphic examples. A woman known as Nasreen was sewing skirts and blouses and getting 11p per garment, which generated £10 a week for 50 hours' work. A woman called Jenny was earning £12 to £15. In her most successful week she earned about £30 for 60 hours' work, including working in the evenings and at weekends. That is the background to the issues with which we want to deal through the Bill.
Secondly, on health and safety, clearly there are potential dangers even in fairly light work undertaken at home. There are dangers in cutting canvas, sewing leather, soldering circuit boards and having chemicals in the home—certainly if there are children around. In that context the "Home Truths" report states:
Employers' duties to self-employed homeworkers are fairly limited. However, where the homeworkers have the status of employees, their employers have a responsibility for ensuring their health and safety (under the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974) on the same basis as any other employees. However, the evidence of this survey is that few are exercising this responsibility.
Home workers said that they had been given health and safety advice by the employer in only 4 per cent. of cases, and the employer had only provided safety equipment in the same, tiny, proportion of cases. The percentage of employers insuring home workers against accidents was even lower, at 3 per cent. of cases.
That graphically demonstrates the problems faced by home workers and the degree to which, even where people are recognised as employees, employers are not fulfilling their responsibilities under the law.
In a factory, employees would be given firm guidance on how to do—and how not to do—jobs. There would be safety equipment, protective clothing and inspectors to keep an eye on how a job is done. The Health and Safety Executive would pay periodic visits. No such safeguards exist at home. Some may be impractical, but the safety of the workers still matters enormously, and the House should note that.
Thirdly, there is the lack of cover under the national insurance system. Many home workers do not currently pay national insurance contributions, and nor do employers on behalf of workers who are, or may be designated as, employees. Consequently, home workers miss out on national insurance dependent benefits. Non-contribution arises partly from the low earnings of home workers, who often earn less than the lower threshold of £58 per week.
If home worker status were clarified as fully equivalent to that of employees in factories or offices, that would at a stroke improve the home worker's financial lot. There could be an increase in wages of between 20 and 30 per cent. at the very least. That would bring around 200,000 people into the national insurance net. I put it to the Minister—I would be glad if he would respond—that if, by such a stroke, we brought 200,000 people into the national insurance net, that would generate at least £100 million for the Treasury. If the Government are turning their back on such resources, I want to know why.
Unfortunately, among home workers there is an element that is in the black economy. They may be earning more than £58 a week. Greater clarity in law will help many of them come openly into the system. Again, there is potential for substantial income for the Treasury.
I address the problem from the point of view of not only income for the Treasury but basic national insurance benefit rights for employees who most certainly need them.
The fourth problem is the main one dealt with by the Bill—the absence of legal employment rights for home workers compared with those for similar employees who do identical work in factories and offices. Two major enactments safeguard the rights of employees: the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, as amended, and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. They provide, inter alia, rights for a written contract of employment, statements of itemised pay, appeal mechanisms against dismissal, redundancy entitlement and maternity provisions.
The stark truth is that home workers are, in practice, widely denied those rights. The survey that I mentioned showed that only 34 per cent. have itemised pay slips; only 18 per cent. have any form of employment contract; only 6 per cent. have redundancy entitlements; and only 6 per cent. are allowed maternity leave.
The overwhelming majority of home workers do not have the rights that are provided by law for other employees; nor do they have the rights of collective representation that are recognised by trade union legislation. If ever a group needed such rights, it is home workers. The effectiveness of the law as it stands can be measured only by the way in which it works in practice. Clearly, the law is not working in practice.
If the Minister tries to argue that the law regards every home worker who has not opted to be considered self-employed as an employee, he will have to explain why employee rights are being denied in case after case to the overwhelming extent shown by several surveys.
The problem of definition of home workers and whether they are classified as employees was highlighted by the Employment Select Committee in 1981. In paragraph 9 of its first report in 1981–82 on home working, it commented:
There is an unsatisfactory area of doubt over the employment status of many homeworkers: it seems to be unclear whether many such workers are self-employed or are employees of the firms for which they work.
In paragraph 10, the Committee recommended:
Homeworkers should be regarded as employees…Homeworkers should enjoy the same employment protection as other workers.
Patently, 15 years later, Parliament has failed to provide such protection for those workers.
Interpretation of the law by the courts and the agencies of Government is a hopeless mess. I have been advised that case law is contradictory. The recent case of Mrs. Vasanti Patel of Leicester shows the difficulties. She was an out-worker working from her home for a clothing company. Her company regarded her as a self-employed person, as did the Inland Revenue, but an industrial tribunal classified her as an employee. After the case, the Inland Revenue commented that the problem arose because no definition of employment, and hence of employee, exists in law. It said that the definitions are blurred.
In a publication endorsed and presented by the Government a few months ago, "A Manager's Guide to Teleworking", the Government themselves recognised the problem. The document stated:
Whether someone is an employee or self-employed depends upon the terms and conditions on which he or she is engaged and works. There is no statutory definition of employment or


self-employment but the Courts have considered the question on a number of occasions and have identified a number of criteria as helping to determine someone's employment status. The conditions running through these judgments show that no one factor is conclusive.
The Government's own publication recognises that a problem exists. Mrs. Patel won her case, but we cannot expect every home worker to go to court to obtain what should be basic employment rights.
I have so far addressed the plight of the group of home workers who historically have been badly done by. I want to broaden the debate and look to the future.
Telecottaging is already a growth industry and modern technology such as fibre-optic links, the Internet and interactive digital systems open up the prospect of much greater home working, albeit of a nature different from that of the traditional groups that I have already described. The opportunities provided by telecottaging can be a major blessing, especially for scattered rural areas such as that which I represent. If it is to be an area of growth, it is vital that the employment rights of people who work from home by way of telecottaging are protected.
The development of telecottaging is important environmentally. It will reduce the need for car travel by employees, decentralise economic activity and sustain small local communities. That all points to the need to welcome telecottaging and the concept of home working, as do considerations of care in the community. If we are to go down that road, it is vital that we sort out the glaring anomalies in law for people who work at home.
The Government want to increase flexibility in the labour market. They want to encourage home working, especially teleworking. How can they do so honestly if those involved find that they are to lose out on their employment rights? Teleworking is a growing sector, but it has already encountered those problems. A survey undertaken by the Department of Employment in 1993, again by Ursula Huws, showed that 57 per cent. of teleworkers are considered permanent employees; 8 per cent. are temporary employees; and 32 per cent. are self-employed.
Last May, the Department of Employment launched a book entitled "A Manager's Guide to Teleworking", by Ursula Huws, to which I referred. In a section on advice to managers on the contractual arrangements that should be drawn up, it stated:
Drawing up contracts for teleworking can seem a daunting task. But in practice it presents problems only in a minority of cases. Nine out of 10 telework managers report no problems at all in this area.
The ED Teleworking Survey showed that in half the organisations teleworkers have the status of employees, usually permanent employees. This means that they have normal contracts of employment to which extra clauses have been added to cover their situation as teleworkers.
The Government's publication goes on to detail the extra clauses that must be added to a contract of employment to look after a teleworker's position. It says:
Extra clauses in an employee's teleworker contract might cover: the hours when teleworkers are expected to be at their desk or in the employer's office; any extra responsibilities or duties relating to being home-based, (e. g. procedures for regular reporting or for a safe delivery of work); health and safety issues; details of which expenses can be claimed from the employer and/or any additional allowances payable to the teleworkers to cover heating, lighting and other costs; and insurance.

That specific advice is given in a report presented by the Government to people intent on developing more home working by way of telecottaging. If that advice is relevant to employees working at home in that context, it is equally applicable to home workers in all other sectors of the economy where home working is undertaken.
It is worth reminding the House what the Minister said in a press release published when that document was presented. The press release, "Plug into teleworking—Ann Widdecombe tells UK businesses", says:
To make a success of teleworking management arrangements must be adapted to new working arrangements. Teleworkers need to be clear about what is expected of them. Effective methods are needed for monitoring performance and giving workers feedback…
One of the main messages of the guide is that teleworkers should be as highly valued and integrated members of the organisation as any others. They should not be left out of consultation and planning. They should have equal access to training and promotional opportunities. These points do mean that managers need to give extra thought and care to teleworking arrangements.
Those are the words of the then Employment Minister, the current Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) —and those provisions should apply equally to all home workers. That position should arise from their status in law. That press release shows that at least one Minister recognises the problem and the fact that steps need to be taken in some circumstances.
A change in the law along the lines proposed in the Bill is needed to resolve the problem. Clauses 1 and 2 provide that the two basic Acts that deal with employee rights—the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993—should have the term "worker" inserted in place of the word "employee". Clause 3 adopts the definition of "worker" as that given in the Wages Act 1986, sections 8(1) and 8(2), which essentially say that a worker is
an individual who works under a contract whereby the individual undertakes to do or perform any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is not that of a client or customer".
I am advised professionally that that is an appropriate definition because it already exists in law and that. by adopting it, we would close the loopholes in current legislation.
If the Government insist that, because of rulings such as the one on the Patel case, the law is adequate, there is a crying need for employers, the Inland Revenue, the national insurance authorities, the Department of Social Security and the health and safety at work people to be told that fact. There is a crying need also for mechanisms to be set up to enable home workers to secure their rights without recourse to courts or industrial tribunals in every instance.
Four steps now need to be taken. First, a formal Government circular should be sent to all employers of home workers, informing them that home workers have the same rights as the employer's other employees. Secondly, a body similar to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission should be set up to assist home workers to obtain their rights. Thirdly, local authorities should designate someone to advise home workers. I am glad to say that the new Caernarfonshire and Meirionnyddshire authority which comes into force on 1 April plans to do exactly that.
Fourthly, if employers contend that a home worker is self-employed and not an employee, the burden of proof should fall on the employer. Until and unless it is so proved, the home worker should be treated as an employee, with all the rights under the law that that entails. Those four steps are the minimum to which the Government should respond if they are not prepared to take on this Bill. However, it would be much easier if we gave a Second Reading to the Bill and went on to examine the details in Committee.
The law must be changed to accomplish that and, if the Government contend otherwise, they must explain why overwhelmingly in practice the law stands in contempt. Laws that are systematically ignored are bad laws and need to be amended. The Bill provides a mechanism and, if its detailed wording is inadequate, the Government can table amendments or new clauses in Committee.
This issue is on the political agenda here and in Europe. A draft European Commission recommendation on home working defines the term "home working" and calls on member states to review, revise and develop laws, regulations and policies to provide home workers with: contracts of employment; statements on pay and deductions; maternity and social security safeguards; health and safety provisions; a method of resolving disputes; and a number of other safeguards. It also highlights the need for local advice centres for home workers, and for collecting and collating reliable statistics on home working, which are clearly desperately needed, according to all the publications on which one can lay one's hands in the Library.
The draft European document also emphasises the need for employer organisations and trade unions to develop measures to implement the Commission's recommendations. I should have thought that it would appeal to the Government that the parties involved should sort out the problems. I urge the Government to approach the negotiations with the European Union in a positive frame of mind.
An International Labour Organisation conference on home working will be held in Geneva on 4 June this year, when the comprehensive home working recommendations will be considered. The proposed text, of which I have seen a copy, includes provisions for: first, a competent authority at national or regional level to keep a register of home workers; secondly, employers when they first give out work to a home worker, to notify the authority and keep a register of home workers employed; and, thirdly, employers to keep a record of the work assigned, the rate of remuneration, the time allocated, the allowable home worker costs reimbursed, the deductions from pay, the gross and net remuneration and the date of payment.
The Government must recognise that those basic provisions are necessary for home workers if they are to be fairly treated under the law, because home workers miss out on them at present. The ILO document could provide an excellent basis for securing fair treatment, and a source of reliable information.
In summary, the Bill will not increase the amount of employment protection legislation on the statute book; nor will it increase or extend employment protection. The Bill is about social justice and making it easier for workers to claim the rights to which they are legally entitled and which are set out as the statutory minimum in current law. The Bill will put no further duties on

employers. It will not extend rights to genuinely self-employed workers, but it will give protection to those workers who are wrongly classified as self-employed by their employers or are unsure of their legal status.
The problems and confusion created by the current wording of employment legislation make challenging employment status through the industrial tribunal system complicated, requiring great legal expertise. The current provision of accessible, free specialist advice to home workers is patchy. If the rights of home workers were more accessible, standard advice agencies would be able to handle their inquiries easily and effectively.
Parliament intended that workers should have statutory minimum rights at work. The present loophole means that employers can make a mockery of the basic rules that were laid down by the House of Commons. It is not just a home working problem. Increasing numbers of workers have been classified as self-employed by employers who seek to avoid their statutory obligations. That is particularly true in such sectors as construction and publishing. As the Bill could produce more money for the Treasury, it would be beneficial to the Government, as well as result in new benefits to employees.
I urge the Government to take the Bill seriously. I have outlined issues that often lie the below the surface. Home workers do not have strong organisations to speak on their behalf. Many are vulnerable people who are uncertain of their legal status as employees or their right to work in their own homes. They need help. It may well be that the Government and their predecessors considered the existing legislation to be adequate. The figures that I have quoted demonstrate that it is not. As the current law is not working, I appeal to the Government to say that they are prepared to change it to ensure that home workers in all parts of Britain can obtain the rights that they require and deserve.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I congratulate the hon Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the topic that he has selected as the subject of his measure. The plight of home workers is all too often ignored, and we should welcome the opportunity that the Bill provides to discuss it today.
More than 1 million people in Britain work from home. The majority are women and many are black or Asian. They are often isolated, and they have no collective voice to speak on their behalf. They are extremely vulnerable and they look to the House to defend and protect their interests. They are perhaps one of the least protected sections of the work force.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that home working is a growing sector. As the profile of the labour market changes, it is important that employment law is amended to reflect those changes. The traditional view of the home worker is someone working from a Victorian terrace, perhaps somewhere in the east midlands. That has changed dramatically. Many new home workers live in rural areas and often work in rather professional employment. Nevertheless, their needs remain clear.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the point that he is making. Does he accept that, since 1981, the proportion of home workers in manufacturing jobs has decreased from 21 per cent.


to 12 per cent. and that the real increases in home working have been in the better paid managerial, professional and secretarial occupations?

Mr. Byers: Yes. I accept that point absolutely. However, we should not ignore the employment needs of those individuals. Although there has been a change in the nature of home working, and many of the individuals concerned are in managerial and professional employment, they still need the protection of employment legislation; that issue is at the heart of our debate.
Although the nature of home working has changed, individuals working in that sector continue to be exploited. A recent survey by the National Group on Homeworking shows that many people work exceptionally long hours for as little as 30p a hour. The average home worker works 36 hours a week for £46.
In addition, we should reflect on the conditions in which those people carry out their work at home. Approximately eight out of 10 home workers have children. About 70 per cent. of them work in the same room as their children play. One in five care for a dependent relative while working at home. Many home workers struggle to provide a living for themselves, their children and their dependants, often in difficult circumstances. They are often vulnerable and open to exploitation, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the legal difficulties surrounding the definition of an employee, as opposed to someone in self-employment, are not helpful to people in those circumstances.
One would have hoped that the Government would recognise the vulnerability of many home workers and be prepared to take some positive steps to assist them. Unfortunately, in the last couple of months the Government have taken steps that will create difficulties for many home workers.
The Minister will be aware that on 28 November 1995 the Government repealed section 133 of the Factories Act 1961 as part of their attack on red tape, as they see it. That section required employers to notify the names and addresses of their home workers to the relevant local authority. The purpose was to allow authorities to ensure the observance of health and safety measures and to offer welfare advice. It was a key part of local authority strategy to tackle poverty among home worker families. The Government, in their infinite wisdom and as part of their bonfire of regulations, decided to remove section 133. That has created difficulties, because that modest measure was of benefit to many local authorities in helping home workers in their areas.
The Minister may say that the Health and Safety Executive was not a greater promoter of retaining section 133 of the 1961 Act. I was disappointed that the executive was not prepared to oppose the Government's repeal of that measure, but many sectors of society and organisations regret that the Government felt it necessary to repeal section 133.
At the heart of the Bill is the legal definition of "employee". The distinction between employees and the self-employed has, for a variety of reasons, become blurred. The Patel case is particularly significant.That

individual was regarded by many organisations and bodies as self-employed, but the industrial tribunal held her to be an employee. Government clarification is needed.

Mr. Wigley:: Given the forthcoming ILO conference and European Union discussion document, and in the event of the Government failing to tackle this important problem, can the hon. Gentleman indicate whether an incoming Labour Government would tackle it as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Byers:: That is always an interesting question. Later, I will outline Labour's approach.

Mr. John M. Taylor:: Does it have anything to do with stakeholders?

Mr. Byers:: Much of Labour's policy reflects our commitment to the stakeholder economy—and that covers home workers as well as other employees.
The Patel case has important practical and legal consequences. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that decision and say today how the Government view the blurring, legally, between employees and the self-employed. Given the changing labour market, it is in the employer's interests for people to be self-employed—although in practice they are employees. In journalism, teaching and the construction industry, people are increasingly encouraged—some might say forced—to seek self-employed status because of the benefits for the employer. It removes statutory obligations and offers substantial savings in terms of the employer's national insurance and tax payments. Employers should not be able to use a legal loophole to escape those liabilities—they are stakeholders too, and they have a responsibility and duty to the public purse.
Home workers are especially vulnerable. They are isolated and have no collective voice. The Government should not stand to one side and allow them to be exploited. Home workers need the protection of the House and the Government. Labour's approach to employment law is to provide minimum standards for all in the world of work, whether work is done in the factory, office or home. That principle, and our commitment to it, will affect our approach to home working as to other aspects of employment legislation.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor):: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for his clear explanation of the concerns that led him to introduce the Bill. I have been most interested in what he had to say. May I also thank the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) for his balanced contribution? I am sorry in retrospect that I diverted him into the subject of stakeholding, but perhaps he feels at home with the concept even if the rest of us do not understand it.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke on behalf of a group of people whom he considers to be especially vulnerable. Today is not the first time that he has spoken in this place for the underdog. The hon. Gentleman is highly regarded in the House and I, having been the Welsh Whip for almost four years, also hold him in high regard. I recognise that this is a matter on which he feels


strongly, and I have listened carefully this morning. While I cannot make any promises, I hope that I may have some success in persuading the hon. Gentleman that the legislation already extends significant protection to home workers.
One difficulty is the definition of the group of people about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned. The technological changes that we have seen in recent years have meant that more of those people who work from home do so through choice. Furthermore, many are highly skilled, well paid and well trained. The term "home worker" can cover computer experts, local solicitors and accountants.
The spring 1995 "Labour Force Survey" revealed that nearly three quarters of those who work from home are in managerial, professional, technical, clerical and secretarial occupations. Only a small proportion are unskilled manual workers falling into the traditional view of the home worker who fills envelopes or sews eyes on to soft dolls. There is nothing wrong with those occupations—they need doing and are done. In any event, many home workers, whether they sew or write programmes for computers, are employees who are already covered by the full protection of employment legislation.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon will be aware, case law has established that just because people work in their own homes, rather than on the employer's premises, that does not necessarily mean that they are not employees like those who work in a factory. Like employees who work in a factory, home workers who are employees can complain of unfair dismissal if the employer stops giving them work. They can claim a redundancy payment if they are no longer needed, and they can also take maternity leave. While they are working, their employer should deduct tax and national insurance contributions as for any other employee. Those who are not employees can nevertheless benefit from protection against discrimination and unlawful deductions from their pay, and from health and safety provisions.
I recognise that it may not be easy to tell whether an individual is employed or self-employed. That is common ground between the hon. Member for Caernarfon, the hon. Member for Wallsend and myself. The individual home worker himself—or herself—may not always be sure. However, hon. Members may be interested to know that research has recently been carried out on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment, which will soon be published. It shows that only one third of unskilled home workers consider themselves to be self-employed and that they generally look after their own income tax arrangements. The research shows that those who consider themselves to be employees leave it to their employers to look after those matters.

Mr. Wigley:: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed response. He has based his argument on the fact that a large proportion of the vulnerable people to whom I have referred are employees in law. If that is the case, why is it that 66 per cent. of them—according to the survey I have quoted—do not receive an itemised pay slip; 82 per cent. of them do not have a contract of employment; and more than 90 per cent. do not receive

the other benefits which employees should expect to have? If they are employees in law, the law is not delivering the rights that they should have as employees.

Mr. Taylor:: I know the answer to that question, and I shall give it to the hon. Gentleman, although I know that it will not satisfy him completely. Employees such as those he mentioned are entitled to written particulars of their employment—what is commonly called a contract of employment—and to an itemised pay statement. There is no question about those entitlements. It is absolutely right that they are entitled to a statement of contractual employment terms and to an itemised pay statement.
The redress for an employee who does not receive them is to take the matter to an industrial tribunal—on that, I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would part company. I think that he is of the opinion that such tribunals are complex and legalistic. My opinion is that they are innately and culturally informal, and that people may be helped by taking their complaints or inquiries to tribunals. We might reach out and agree with each other on the desirability of doing everything possible to ensure that tribunals are simple and user-friendly and that they are not legalistic. That tribunals should be as informal and friendly and helpful as possible remains very much in my thoughts.

Mr. Wigley:: The Minister will accept that many of those who work at home are among the most vulnerable. They do not have backing from any organisation, and find it difficult to pursue cases to industrial tribunals. Given that fact, and the fact that he is predicating his case on the basis that the overwhelming majority of those people are employees, will he consider, as a practical and serious proposition, drawing up guidelines for employers which make it clear that those home workers are employees, and that, without doubt, employers have a responsibility to provide such things as contracts of employment and itemised pay slips? If there is any doubt about whether a person is an employee or self-employed, the guidelines should make it clear that the onus of proof is on the employer.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that I will remain available to discuss the issues with him in the Chamber or elsewhere. I will go this far: I will ask my officials to consider carefully whether there is any way that the guidance material that is produced by my Department could be more helpful, not least in explaining who is likely to he considered as an employed or a self-employed person. I should like to be constructive, because the hon. Gentleman was entirely constructive in his arguments.
I accept entirely that there are people for whom obtaining legal guidance or determination can be difficult or hard to find, and a process with which they feel culturally ill at ease. As president of the citizens advice bureau in Shirley in my constituency, I recommend the wholly admirable—and often unsung—services that it provides. I am sure that, like mine, the hon. Gentleman's constituents will find that the advice that is available from their local CAB is better than they could ever have imagined. The culture, which is friendly and informal, is one that we seek to encourage for those who, by definition, are troubled and who come to the bureau burdened with a problem.
I shall develop my remarks further. I do not wish to trespass upon eternity, but there are more things to say. Those who are not employees can nevertheless benefit


from protection against discrimination, protection against unlawful deductions from their pay, and from health and safety provisions. I recognise that it may not be easy to tell whether an individual is employed or self-employed. That is a recurring theme, and the individual himself or herself may not always be sure.
In the final analysis, it will be for the industrial tribunal to decide whether the home worker is an employee and can complain of unfair dismissal or enforce other rights under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. In making its decision, the tribunal will consider all the circumstances surrounding the employment relationship to see whether there is any reciprocity of obligation between the two parties, which is the necessary condition of a contract of employment.
The Government's position has always been that it would not be right to require employers to carry the full burden of the legislation without the minimum degree of mutual obligation which must be present in any contract of employment. To add to regulation in that way would considerably constrain employers' freedom to run their businesses in the manner they think best. It would add to employers' costs, reduce work opportunities and inhibit the strong economy which we aim to encourage.
I hope that my remarks have in some way convinced the hon. Gentleman. While I have not found it possible to sign up to his proposed legislation, I have listened with great attention to what he has said and I shall continue to bear it in mind. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to consider those important issues.

Mr. Wigley: I shall not detain the House unduly. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and I have noted the points that he has made. I am grateful also for his undertaking that he is prepared to look at the possibility of drawing employers' attention to their responsibilities under existing legislation. Those responsibilities may not be entirely clear to employers not for some malicious reason, but because there is a grey area that must be addressed. I shall be very glad if the Government can make progress along those lines.
I noticed a slight contradiction in what the Minister said—particularly in his closing remarks when he suggested that my legislation might impose additional burdens and costs on employers. However, earlier in his

speech he based his argument on the fact that employee rights exist already. Therefore, those burdens—if that is what they are—and costs should be on employers' shoulders already. I invite the Minister to ponder that point.
We are trying to ensure that all employees are recognised as such and have the reasonable protection of law when they are working in their own homes. In some circumstances, the provisions that apply in the factory or at the office cannot apply at home. However, there should patently be protection in other areas, and that protection does not exist at present.
I am glad that the Minister is prepared to look into the matter—particularly in light of the Patel case, which may provide a basis for insisting that people who are not receiving fair treatment should be treated fairly. I accept that the Patel case moves things forward in that direction. I also accept that the measures that will be introduced at a European Union level and in the International Labour Organisation in coming months may add dimensions to the considerations that the House should take on board in legislation, if legislation is necessary in that field. We may have to return to the matter in a year or so.
I urge the Government to act on the positive implications of the Minister's speech. I shall take advantage of any opportunity to discuss the issues further with him outside the Chamber on a formal or semi-formal basis. I hope that, as a result of Government action along the lines that he suggested, it will he possible for home workers who have missed out on their entitlements in the past to secure them in the future without having to resort to industrial tribunals.
If they need to go to such tribunals, I hope that they will note the Minister's assurance that assistance is available from, for example, citizens advice bureaux, and that local authorities will inform them of their rights. It would be better, however, if employers delivered those rights, because—as the Government say—that is the position in law. Employers should note what has been said here today, and recognise that responsibilities go with the employment of home workers.
I hope that this short debate, and the Bill, will at least promote that argument. If, in the fulness of time, we find that substantial progress is not being made, we shall want to table further legislation. I thank the Minister for his response.

Question put and negatived.

Offensive Weapons

Order for Second Reading read.

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Frances Lawrence, the widow of murdered headmaster Philip Laurence, made a very true statement when she said: "A knife is an inanimate object, and it needs a human being to invest it with murderous properties." Her husband was brutally stabbed to death before Christmas outside the gates of his school, when he bravely intervened to protect a pupil from a violent attack. The letter sent by his eight-year-old son Lucien to Santa Claus asking for his father back for Christmas was one of the saddest things that I had ever read.
But we also think of John Killick, the security guard who was stabbed to death in Scunthorpe last December. We think of pensioner Frank Dempsey, who died after being stabbed in the throat, and of the frenzied slaughter of Imtiaz Begum and her three children with a nine-inch kitchen knife. That happened only last weekend. I have boundless admiration for WPC Jill Spencer, who disarmed the attacker. Every act of mindless brutality produces a double tragedy—the loss of a life, and the distraught family that that person leaves behind.
I first came into contact with a family struck by such a tragedy in 1987, when I was a parliamentary candidate in Bethnal Green and Stepney. There I met Bill and Valerie Dennison, whose 17-year-old son John had been stabbed to death. He was a model son, liked by all, good at sport and with everything to live for. He became another innocent victim of mindless violence, and his death nearly destroyed his parents. Closer to home, only last Sunday my 20-year-old research assistant Jay Therell was the victim of an attempted knifepoint robbery in Paddington. The weapon was a flick knife.
Above all, we should remember the price that the police pay when trying to protect the rest of us while we are going about our business. It is a humbling experience to talk—as I have—to officers who have been viciously stabbed; they deserve all the protection that is going. We should include in the roll of honour Sergeant Derek Robertson, the father of two children who was stabbed to death after being called to the scene of a robbery at a sub-post office in Croydon in 1994. In that year, more than 1,000 police officers in England and Wales were seriously assaulted and injured.
Police officers who are in contact with the problem are in no doubt that it is getting worse. Worryingly, research suggests that the problem is at its worst among males in their mid-teens. A 15-year-old is currently being held facing charges in relation to Mr. Lawrence's death.
In the year to April 1995, 2,550 offences of violence against the person in the Metropolitan police force area involved knives or other sharp instruments. That compares with 2,332 during the preceding 12 months. In Sutton, which is hardly an area notorious for violence, there have been two stabbings and one knifepoint robbery, and two 13-year-old boys were found carrying knives in the past month alone.
Prosecutions for the offence of carrying a knife in public with intent to use it rose sharply, from nearly 1,000 to 3,367, between 1993 and 1994. Those figures may

show only the tip of the iceberg, because knife carriers almost always carry their knives concealed. Of the 677 people who were murdered in this country in 1994, 236 were stabbed. In London, 41 per cent. of all murders involved knives or other sharp instruments. The number of people who have been injured by knives probably runs into thousands.

Mr. James Couchman: Of the horrific number who died under the knife, as it were, how many of the assailants were not known to the victim and how many were so-called domestic murders?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon.Friend for his interesting question. I regret that, at this time, I cannot give precise answers, but perhaps I shall be able to do so later. It is worth looking into that matter.
It is salutary to note that the knives amnesty, which ended on Sunday, binned 38,000 knives across England and Wales. That was a worthwhile exercise, which I hope will be repeated. In Sutton, there was a haul of 100 serious weapons, which included carving knives, bayonets and machetes. Other weapons included knuckledusters, throwing stars, cut-throat razors and a gruesome array of flick
knives, lock knives, and stiletto-type knives that are known as widow makers make us realise how enormously important and valuable are such amnesties.
Scotland had a successful amnesty called Operation Blade, from which Strathclyde police had a haul of 4,569 knives. Such amnesties should be encouraged, because, although some people will maintain that the binned knives were probably not from criminals, who are we to know or guess? However, it is certain that the binning of those 38,000 knives means that 38,000 people are less likely to become victims of knife attacks. We owe it to Mr. Lawrence, Sergeant Robertson and all the other good, decent people who, one way or another, are the victims of stabbings to take tough measures against those who, for whatever twisted reasons, carry knives and are prepared to use them.

Mr. Alun Michael: It is a humbling experience to note the incidents mentioned by the hon. Lady, and the fact that police officers in ordinary community roles often face danger and actual injury. It may be helpful for the hon. Lady to be aware of our support for the measures in her Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has long urged, and to be aware also of my hon. Friend's offer to assist the Home Secretary in ensuring that these measures have a swift passage through the House. I hope that that is of some assistance to the hon. Lady in considering the way that the debate proceeds.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind message, and I enormously appreciate his party's support. It is a wonderful example of where society can together work for a great and common good and it is deeply valued.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Although my hon. Friend welcomes the Labour party's support, has she noticed that, apart from its spokesman, there are no Labour Members in the Chamber?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am disappointed about that, but I am sure that the Labour party will work to our


benefit. It says that we will genuinely together, but it would have been nice if more supporters had been on the Labour Benches.
It is worth noting the words of Cardinal Hume at Mr. Lawrence's memorial service earlier this week. He pointed out that violence cannot be separated from family life and the serious commitment of the marriage bond. Police report to me that the vast majority of the teenagers they arrest come from chaotic family backgrounds.
If for no other reason, I urge couples who plan to separate to think carefully about the effects that separation might have on their children, because no doubt exists that children with two parents—together, committed, living in one household, who know exactly where their children are, what they are doing and what they are carrying—are much less likely to end up in the sort of trouble that we have discussed today.
Many people have asked me whether there should be a ban on the sale of knives to youngsters. I have great sympathy with that, and I hope that, following further consultations, it might be brought within the scope of the Bill. I tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that many discussions have already taken place on that score between myself, the Home Office and parties outside. Such a ban would be a deterrent to some young people. Certainly it would make it more difficult to obtain the more vicious-looking knives, although I concede that, in truth, they can still turn to the kitchen drawer.
Such a ban, however, would send a powerful message of disapproval of such weapons. The more disreputable shops selling knives tell me that they will sell knives without thinking twice. The respectable ones will always quiz people carefully about their age. Often, they will sell them knives only if they are accompanied by an adult.
It should be remembered that there is already a ban on the sale of 16 types of knives and other offensive weapons. The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 bans flick knives and gravity knives. An order made under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 bans a range of bladed and other offensive weaponry.
None the less, a ban on the sale of knives to young people is worth pursuing. Even as I was coming into the Chamber, the Police Federation sent a message saying that such a ban would send the right message.

Mr. Michael: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady's comments. That is again the sort of thing which, if there is agreement across the House, should be dealt with quickly. Does she agree that the same should apply to advertising of some of these items? I refer to advertising not of ordinary knives or things that are used in sport, but of weapons that are referred to as "Rambo sidearms". Such advertising sends a horrendous message to young people who read it. If it is possible to have co-operation across the House, and in particular from Ministers at the Home Office, about knives, does she agree that it would be a good idea to speed control of such advertising through the House as well?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important matter. He has my wholehearted

sympathy. I feel strongly about the whole question of advertising and the easy availability of commando and survival knives.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her initiative in bringing forward this Bill. However, a high proportion of knife misuse involves kitchen knives, so, for a sales ban to be effective, it would have to include banning the sale of kitchen knives to those under, say, 16. Is there not a strong case for identity cards, so that people could prove that they were over the age of 16, or whatever is deemed to be the appropriate age? Will she bear that in mind in her discussions with the authorities?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks, with which I agree. An identity card would remove doubt for retailers, and make it easier for them to follow the law. When I meet my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, we will discuss that point in some detail.
I find the whole question of advertising worrying I have been looking at some of the advertisements in mail order catalogues. They contain language that could probably incite immature youngsters to buy knives. It includes such phrases as "Razor sharp stainless steel", "Nearly half a foot long when opened", and "Belt sheath keeps knife neat, safe, ready for action". One advertisement refers to a "viper knife". Another says, "Thumb-flick action, stylish". Yet another says, "Birds of prey—imagine a fantasy battle knife" and "commando dagger", which at £9.95 is described as "excellent value".

Mr. Fabricant: Although I share my hon. Friend's concern, I need some reassurance. I, like many others, carry a penknife. Would it be illegal under her Bill?

Lady Olga Maitland: No. A penknife that is less than 3 in long, especially if folded, is safe and can be carried in public without fear. Of course, if it were being carried in a threatening way—

Mr. Fabricant: Like this?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must close his knife and put it away immediately.

Lady Olga Maitland: I want to continue dealing with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, which we should discuss further in Committee. Should we, indeed, extend the ban to include, for example, Rambo and combat knives? I cannot imagine that they have any legitimate use; I would not use them to cut up onions.
There is a difficulty with legal definition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to examine whether there can be a clear distinction in law so that those knives can be banned outright.
There are doubts about the strength of self-regulation in the advertising industry, but I am assured that the Advertising Standards Authority will investigate any advertisement that does offend, and will take action. It maintains that such action is effective. The ASA tells me that it receives relatively few complaints on the


subject, and I gather that it has received only a dozen in the past few years. It may be that the fact that the ASA has received so few complaints does not necessarily reflect the number of people who are concerned about the issue.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for dealing seriously with this point. I raised the issue during a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Minister referred then to the powers of the ASA. When my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised the issue with the ASA, it became clear that it was unable to take the sort of action that the hon. Lady, other hon. Members and I would want to see.
The problem is clearly that the ASA is unable to be pro-active. The association should see adverts such as those to which I and the hon. Lady have referred as the sort of thing that the public would want removed from the pages of magazines. The ASA should not need lots of letters of complaint to stimulate it into action in this area.

Lady Olga Maitland: One point that the hon. Gentleman and I have overlooked is that the ASA has recently undertaken a review of weapons advertisements in the printed media. Perhaps he and I could have a word with the authority to see what progress has been made in this regard.
To strengthen the House's determination to look carefully at a ban on the sale of knives, I shall read a letter from a headmaster to his local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight):
Yesterday I gave this term's haul of weapons to the police for destruction. This included 3 air pistols, 7 knives, a large catapult and two screwdrivers; one of which was used to stab another boy in the chest during a fight in November…Please, please, please support Lady Olga Maitland's bill and urge your colleagues to curb the sales of these weapons, which have no obvious purpose other than to appear offensive. It would also be helpful to ban the display of knives too, as many youngsters are enthralled by such displays.
Another illustration of the importance of the matter is that the son of one of my constituents was recently threatened on a train by a 16-year-old with a knife. The boy is just 11 years old.
There are other examples: a 15-year-old pupil in Tyne and Wear, stabbed in the back after becoming caught up in a feud between his fellow pupils and a gang from a neighbouring school—in other words, his peer group; a 14-year-old, knifed in the leg during a playground argument in Birmingham; a 15-year-old boy, stabbed several times in Liverpool; a 14-year-old boy, knifed three times outside a school in east London; a 14-year-old girl, stabbed in the chest when a petty row at a comprehensive school in Cardiff exploded into violence.
All these are examples of young people who have somehow obtained knives are using them on each other. A ban on the sale of knives would go some way to dealing with the problem. I could carry on for some time on the subject of—

Mr. Barry Porter: On the problem of young people carrying knives, many years ago, when I was in the scout movement, I carried a sheath knife to whittle sticks, skin rabbits, or whatever scouts did in those days. Will members of respectable organisations, such as the scout movement, or perhaps Army cadets, who may

well carry a bayonet or something in the course of their activities, be affected by the Bill; or would the fact they are members of such highly respectable organisations constitute a "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse"?

Lady Olga Maitland: I can reassure my hon. Friend. Such people would be covered by having a "lawful authority" or "reasonable excuse". The Bill applies to people who are clearly carrying knives without a lawful excuse. There is an enormous gulf between the two, and I would not want members of the public to fear that the Bill will interfere with the legitimate carrying of knives.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned banning the sale of knives. I have here some newspaper coverage from which we should take heart. It shows that many shop owners are calling for a clear ban on the sale of knives to youngsters, because it would make their lives easier. Both The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail have carried out extensive investigations in that regard.
Illicit knife-carrying is an unmitigated evil, but I recognise that some people may have a good reason to carry a knife, and their position is fully safeguarded under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. To clarify the matter, it is a defence to prove that one has a good reason or a "lawful authority" to carry a knife.
Perhaps a man needs one for his work. He may be a carpenter with a bag of tools containing a knife, or a carpet layer. He may be carrying a knife because he is on the way to his allotment to cut cabbages. Men carry knives for religious reasons, such as Sikhs, who carry ceremonial daggers, or as part of national dress—for example, a Scotsman in full Highland dress, bearing a skean dhu.
Interestingly, I received a letter from English Heritage, which pointed out that its members have a legitimate reason for carrying knives when historic battles are re-enacted. English Heritage is anxious that, when members and followers are dressed in full traditional historic costume, carrying a variety of knives and blades, it might be misunderstood and construed as a criminal act. The letter mentions that, when police officers stop participants, the fact that the knives are intended as part of a re-enactment of an old battle and that they are safe after all needs a bit of explaining.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that there were no arrests in Staffordshire in 1988–89 for offences concerning knives, which is reassuring, because, as she will be aware, every year the Civil war battles are re-enacted in Lichfield and knives are carried?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a good illustration of the fact that knives can be carried in a legitimate context.
We must arrest the culture of carrying and using knives. We must ensure that the police and the courts have effective powers to deal with the evil of carrying knives, which I regard with the same seriousness as carrying guns. We have to break the trend. There is already a range of legislation to cover that, but I trust that the Offensive Weapons Bill will strengthen it at certain vital points.
First, the Bill will make it easier for police to arrest people carrying knives. The police find it intensely frustrating when they find a person carrying a knife


without good reason and all that they can do is to issue a formal warning, a caution or, at best, a summons. Curiously, a police officer can arrest a suspected burglar carrying stolen property, but not a man with a knife that can kill. The police will find that the Bill will give them the power to arrest such people on the spot.
The Bill will give the police full powers to arrest people carrying knives or offensive weapons such as flick knives, coshes or knuckledusters without a good reason. I know from talking to the police that they very much want this power, which will allow them to be more proactive and demonstrates the seriousness of the offence. 
In dealing with juveniles, the police will be able to insist that a responsible adult comes to collect him or her. Personally, I would make it mandatory for both parents to come to the police station and be made fully responsible for the actions of their child. 
The penalties I propose, which are fully supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, reflect the gravity of the offence. First, carrying a knife or blade without good reason carries a maximum penalty of a fine of only £5,000 under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but in Scotland it is two years gaol, a fine or both. I propose to bring our law into line with that of Scotland. 
Secondly, carrying an offensive weapon such as a cosh or knuckleduster with the intention of causing injury currently carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison. As that is a much more serious offence, it deserves a stiffer penalty. I therefore propose that the maximum penalty under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 be increased to four years, or a fine, or both. That will apply to Scotland as well. 
It is important to mention that the increase in penalties for knife carrying will also apply to Northern Ireland. From my recent discussions with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I can report that the problem of knives is making its appearance as drug and street crime develop. As a Unionist and a firm believer that Ulster is a part of the British Isles, I think that it is entirely appropriate for their needs to be dealt with in this Bill rather than in a separate, later one. 
I was glad to learn that RUC officers already have the powers of arrest that the Bill proposes to introduce in England and Wales. My Bill, in its introduced form, will extend the two-year imprisonment penalty for knife carrying to Northern Ireland. I intend that it should be amended in Committee to extend to the Province the four-year imprisonment penalty for carrying an offensive weapon. 
Powers of summary arrest and the introduction of much tougher penalties will send a clear message to thugs and bullies. If people carry knives without a good reason, they will get the full punishment they deserve. Serious crimes deserve serious punishments. It is time that we wiped the smirks off the faces of the hooligans who make other people's lives such absolute misery. Public opinion is firmly behind these measures, and the police want them. Once they are law, it will be for the courts as well as the police to use them to the full whenever the circumstances allow. 
I urge parents to keep a more watchful eye on their children and to be tough if they find that their son is carrying a knife. Take it from him; warn him of the

dangers. I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting the Bill, and for the support that I have received from the Association of Chief Police Officers and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate, which is important in terms of my constituency because Philip Lawrence was my constituent and his family—his widow, children and mother—remain my constituents.
I apologise to the House in advance for leaving the debate early because my former vicar will be enthroned as Bishop of London this afternoon in St. Paul's cathedral. I therefore ask for the indulgence of the House to allow me to be with him on this special day. 
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has made a powerful and compelling case and I congratulate her on her initiative in introducing the Bill. I know how much it means to the Lawrence family and the whole nation. 
I was in teaching for 23 years and had the pleasure ultimately of becoming deputy headmaster of a comprehensive school in King's Cross attended by 1,100 boys. Thereafter, I was deputy head and sometimes acting head of a mixed comprehensive school of 2,200 pupils in Lewisham. Children who subsequently went to Oxford and Cambridge universities were educated alongside those who would not succeed in that way. Trouble sometimes erupted outside the school but rarely inside. Like Philip Lawrence, I stood outside my school every day and I am amazed to think of what I did in my time. Without a thought, I disarmed boys of knives, huge sticks and other weapons, and I sorted out youths who had come to cause trouble outside the school. Many schoolmasters and head and deputy head teachers do that every day, and have done so for a long time. 
Sadly, there now seems to be much more premeditated evil behaviour from a small minority of young people and others outside schools and elsewhere in our community. Earlier this month, I had a meeting with Superintendent Smythe, who is in charge of policing in a substantial part of my constituency. We discussed burglary and the good work that the police are doing. Superintendent Smythe and his officers, with the co-operation of the community, have reduced many forms of crime, including burglary and some crimes of violence. Another aspect of crime that we discussed was the problem that sometimes arises when children come out of schools. In my experience, the children coming out of school rarely cause the problem; it arises when people come to interfere with them, and all teachers must watch that carefully. Someone from another school or some ne'er-do-well from another area may come to pick a quarrel with a boy, and serious trouble can erupt quickly. 
The problem for the school is that it is not suitable to invite the police along as a routine. It is not fair on the police, and it does not help the school to have a policeman standing outside the premises, as that creates its own difficulties. Schools themselves must deal with those problems and, most of the time, it works well when senior staff ensure that pupils leave in an orderly manner, do not provoke bystanders and do not accept provocation from people who have come to cause trouble. 
Now and then there can be deep trouble. The Friday after I met Superintendent Smythe, there was trouble outside a school, not in my constituency but not far away. Rival youths aged 15 had a most ghastly set-to—one drew a knife on the other, stabbed him and killed him. That was only a few days ago, and once again it brought home to me the appalling violence that some 15-year-old boys can cause one another. A suspect for that murder has been arrested and awaits trial, so I cannot say much more about it. 
Although I give my hon. Friend my warmest support for the Bill that she has introduced with such zest, it is clear that society must tackle the root causes. We shall not achieve much by simply seeking to chop off the trouble. Schools should provide proper moral and religious education. I believe passionately that children must be taught the difference between right and wrong and know why it is wrong to violate their neighbours. They must be told, "Your neighbour is made in the image of God. He or she is sacred, just as you are, and to attack him or her with violence is to attack a child of God." They should be told that it is wrong, wicked and evil, and that it should not happen. Children need to understand that. 
I could not understand the concern expressed a few days ago by inspectors and others concerned with schools who were worrying about how to produce a moral code that children could be taught and accept. I see no basic difficulty in that. The ten commandments say it all. If every child understood the ten commandments and the moral behind them, that would be a very good start. I would like every child in education to know the ten commandments. 
My hon. Friend calls for a ban on the sale of knives to young people below the age of 18 and says how difficult that would be. She is so right. It would not be easy to stop children going to Sainsbury and other stores and buying a set of knives. It should be considered and perhaps it should be tried, but it would not be easy. Therefore, we have to seek to deal with the carrying of knives. The Bill does that, and my hon. Friend has produced some answers.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. He mentioned the difficulty of young people going into stores to purchase knives. If stores had a clear ruling that there should be no sale of knives to young people below whatever age we agree, it would not be a matter for debate. The position becomes difficult when the matter is fudged and there are too many alternatives. If it were clear that there would be no sale of knives to young people, if a young person took some kitchen knives to a checkout, the sales girl would have to say no.

Mr. Greenway: I could go along with that. One would have to define young people as those below the age of 18 and they would have to carry identity cards to prove their age, but my hon. Friend would have to achieve that measure by persuasion, and it would not be easy. Although the basic concept behind the Bill is sound and right, its implementation would not be so easy, desirable though it might be. 
Clause 1 tackles the subject very well. It would make it an offence to carry a knife or an article with a blade or point, and people could be stopped without warrant, searched and dealt with on the spot. That would go a long way towards solving the problem.

There was ghastly period in my time in teaching when flick knives were carried and it was legal to carry them. It was even more dangerous than the present situation. Young people and others could, by simply pressing the knife handle, be capable of inflicting great harm from a long blade. Flick knives were successfully banned. If a person is caught carrying one, he faces an enormous penalty. However, if a parliamentary question were tabled on the last time someone was prosecuted and convicted for carrying a flick knife, I am sure that the answer would be that it was some time ago. We have enacted legislation against flick knives, and my hon. Friend's Bill will enhance and improve law and order. 
I want to say a word about my great constituent Philip Lawrence, who was person of the year in 1995, with nearly 24,000 votes across the land. That was a huge response by the people of our country to his courage. My early-day motion 191 was well supported on both sides of the House. It commended Philip Lawrence's courage and extended sympathy to his family. Unfortunately, that early-day motion was suspended under the sub judice rule, because charges have been brought in relation to Philip's murder. 
I want to put on record my tribute to Philip's widow, Frances, and to his four children for their great courage in the way that they have borne that terrible death. It is one thing for a husband and father to die, but to die by murder is something that hon. Members will probably only properly understand if they are unfortunate enough to encounter such a tragedy in others. Philip Lawrence's family have been wonderfully dignified and the country was hugely moved, not least by the memorial service for Philip at Westminster cathedral last Monday. I include Philip's remarkable mother, who is 87, in my tribute. I spent some time with the Lawrence family the day after his death and since, and I know how wonderfully staunch they have been from the first moment. 
I conducted examinations at St. George's school in Westminster, where Philip was headmaster, over several years, so I know the community and everything that the school has sought to do over the years. If the Bill had already been on the statute book, that murder might not have happened—who knows? The effect of that murder was to send the community reeling and to disorientate it. That was the effect of the other murder that I mentioned. Murder by knife is such a sudden thing. It may be premeditated, but not always. The damage to those who commit such murders and who are the victims of it, and to the community, is lasting. It is therefore especially incumbent on the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and find a way to tighten up the law in the way that the Lawrence family and all of us wish. 
I had the honour, with the Abbot of Ealing, Laurence Soper of the Order of St. Benedict, to found the Philip Lawrence memorial fund, on the day after Philip Lawrence's murder. By last Monday, £104,000 had been donated to that fund, mostly in small donations of £5 or £10. From that evil, wicked act, great good has come. The abbot and I have had thousands of letters, as has Frances Lawrence. People have written to say that they could send only £2, £3 or £5, but they sent it with their love for the family, their love for our country and their hopes and determination that we will stand up to lawlessness in the brave way that Philip Lawrence did. That is so worth the saying, and if the Bill helps to achieve that it will achieve a great deal. It may do so.


At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the dedication of the teaching profession. I doubt if there is any good teacher who would not do today what Philip Lawrence did on the fatal day on 8 December 1995, and stand up to trouble outside his or her school in defence of a member of the school. However, those teachers would not expect to suffer murder as a result. 
I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Home Office will consider my suggestion that people convicted of offences near a school should be doubly punished. That happens in other countries. For example, in New York, when a violent offence is committed within a reasonable radius of a school, the punishment is doubled. That has given substantial support to the teaching profession, heads of schools and those seeking to protect schools from invasion or the sort of violence that Philip Lawrence and others have suffered. I hope that that suggestion will be seriously considered. 
I can do no better to conclude my remarks than quote a bidding prayer that 13-year-old Unity Lawrence—Philip and Frances's daughter—wrote and read at Philip's memorial service last Monday. Think of her situation—a small girl before a congregation of 2,500 under those circumstances. She said:
Heavenly Father, bless those who dedicate their lives to teaching. Jesus, the greatest teacher of all, came to earth to teach us to love and respect each other. May his ideals inspire and his values endure.

Mr. Alun Michael: As I mentioned in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the Bill has the support of the Labour party. The hon. Lady was right to refer to individual cases, especially the murder of Philip Lawrence, which have shocked and horrified the nation and stimulated widespread public demands for action. 
However, the dangers have been around for a long time. Debates in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 revealed some of the dangers and the need for action. It is unfortunate that we so often seem to trail behind events. For that reason, I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking the initiative and ensuring that this issue is before the House in this Session and has not been left as a promise for the future. The Home Secretary should have acted himself, but at least he is supporting the Bill, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. 
This is the second occasion in succession that I have spoken in the Chamber in a cross-party spirit. It might become a habit if we carry on like this. There can certainly be few topics that are more suitable for cross-party consensus—a clear and united message from the House. 
The Bill rightly includes the offence of carrying an offensive weapon within the offences that entitle police officers to exercise the power of arrest. The absence of that power has been a curious anomaly, and provision for it is a welcome change in the law. Increases in penalties are important also because they give the courts additional power to sentence. 
Increased penalties send a message of support to the police and to the public, who fear or are at risk of injury. They also send a clear warning, not only to those who perhaps go out intending to become involved in violence but to those who have got into the habit of carrying a knife. One of the greatest dangers is tolerance of carrying a knife and the idea that one does so for self-defence. The danger is always there that, if the item is carried, it will be used, and that the type of fatal incident that we have seen on too many occasions becomes almost inevitable. Violence may be inflicted not intentionally by those who carry knives—that lack of intent is bad enough—but almost by accident.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. Does he agree with me that we are trying to tackle the macho knife culture in which young people carry knives so that they feel big, masculine and one of the boys? They are drawn into that culture by peer group pressure. We hope that, if we make knives difficult to get hold of and pass stiff penalties, they will drop that habit. There is a playground practice of keeping up with the lads.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There is no simple way to tackle this type of problem—one cannot suddenly turn off the tap and say that people's behaviour must change. One must tackle it by every means possible. The hon. Lady is right that we need the legislation and that a message should be sent by the House of Commons. We also need, however, the day-to-day work of so many people, unsung and unrecognised, whether they are teachers, police officers, youth officers or members of a family and the community. 
One of the more difficult things that we must do is to turn the tide, from a vicious circle that allows such things to happen and tolerates violent advertisements and behaviour, into one that encourages more positive behaviour. 
That change cannot be accomplished by edict of the House. We can send our message, but it must be done with the support of the individuals throughout the country who contribute their little bit to giving their local community a more positive culture. I am pleased that the hon. Lady has made that point because it removes the idea that a piece of legislation can be a magic wand that produces results overnight. The scope of the Bill, which the hon. Lady, with becoming modesty, said is limited, is a start in the right direction. It recognises that the developments that we have seen during recent years are unacceptable. There is common ground between us on that. 
I refer to the approach that has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. He has clearly expressed to the Home Secretary the Opposition's wish to be constructive and supportive in passing measures in the House to toughen the law and to support the police in a crackdown on the carrying of knives. Last year, when he made the appeal to give the police the power of arrest, he also expressed concern—shared by the hon. Lady—about the number of convictions for certain offences, which is worryingly small. In 1994, there were 5,419 prosecutions for possession of an offensive weapon, but the conviction rate was only 61 per cent. of that number. There were 3,366 prosecutions for possession of an open blade, but the conviction rate was only 74 per cent.


We need to put across clearer messages. We hope that the number of convictions will be reduced because the carrying of weapons is reduced. That would be a good
result, and that clear message must be sent.
Last month my hon. Friend and Councillor Angela Smith visited Wickford police station in Essex. The police told him that they were finding an increasing link between drugs and knives and they showed him a small arsenal of weapons that had been seized in a single raid on a drug dealer. The items included a machete and a number of large daggers, none of which had any day-to-day lawful use. Those sorts of weapons—to which the hon. Lady referred in her speech—must be removed from our streets.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has been increase in the number of knifepoint robberies? Knives are being used to intimidate and to terrorise ordinary, law-abiding citizens. That is a new turn of events and it is another reason why we must tackle the legislation energetically.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady is correct: we must highlight not only violence but the fear of violence and the use of threats.
I turn now to the issue of mail-order advertisements— I am pleased that the hon. Lady recognised their importance. It is most disturbing that knives called "Rambo Sidearm" and "Rambo Shortsword" are readily available to people of any age by mail order. During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill two years ago, the Opposition suggested that those sorts of advertisements should be regulated properly by the House of Commons. The Government responded that the Advertising Standards Authority has sufficient powers to ensure that the advertisements neither condone nor incite violent behaviour.
When we raised those important issues, I must admit that I was not entirely convinced by Ministers' responses on the subject. However, at least our debating point was recognised. The then Minister of State, Home Office commented:
The British code of advertising practice includes special
provisions on the advertising of weapons so that advertisements for
weapons, such as knives, neither condone nor incite violent
behaviour. Where advertisements are found to contravene the codes, the Advertising Standards Authority can take steps to rectify the situation as appropriate".
I have referred to one or two knives. The "SAS shoulder holster knife"—which was among the sample advertisements that my hon. Friend the
Member for Blackburn sent to the Advertising Standards Authority—was depicted alongside Nazi memorabilia and a replica assault rifle called "Arnie's
Uzi". My hon. Friend provided those items to the Advertising Standards Authority, and the hon. Lady referred to examples of the same sorts of advertisements.
In view of the debates about advertising which took place two years ago, it is somewhat worrying that the response to my hon. Friend's approach to the Advertising Standards Authority is less than inspiring. The council of the ASA debated the issues earlier this month and it appears to have taken no action since the debates in this place. Those debates do not appear to have stimulated the concern and activity that one might have expected. In his reply to my hon. Friend, the chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority says:

There are two principal questions for the Advertising Standards
Authority; first, can we ban such advertisements altogether; and, second, is there any provision in our Codes which enable us to regulate what they contain? As I explained in my previous letters, the answer to the first of these is 'No'.
Therefore, the authority does not have the power to implement the sort of ban that the hon. Lady and I would like to see. The chairman continues:
Any ban must be a question for Parliament. The answer to the second question is 'Yes' but it is important to bear in mind that the very act of advertising such weapons, their appearance and any minimum description, might be seen by some people 'to condone or incite violent behaviour'. If, however, the ASA were to make that assumption, any ruling would be the equivalent to a ban.
Descriptions such as those to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have referred, and the juxtaposition of items in the advertisements, suggest that precisely such action should be taken. It is clear from that letter that the Advertising Standards Authority does not possess the power and freedom to act that were implied in the Minister's reply two years ago.

Mr. Fabricant: I share the hon.
Gentleman's views about the Advertising Standards Authority. Will he, however, pay tribute to the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, which rigorously uphold the ban?

Mr. Michael: I am happy to do that. When
authorities are using the powers available to them, that is welcome. My point about the Advertising Standards Authority is that if, on investigation, we find that it has not exactly been proactive on the issue, and has not the powers to act even if it wished to, that is—as the chairman of the authority suggested—a matter for Parliament. If we can proceed in the spirit of today's debate, it may be possible—as the hon. Lady suggested—to agree amendments to the Bill.
The Advertising Standards Authority points out that millions of advertisements are published each year in a huge range of publications. That is true, but the authority implies that complaints from the general public are the grounds on which it should take action. Clearly, the general public do not look for advertisements for knives and other weapons; every member of the public to whom I have spoken is horrified that such advertisements are allowed. Those who will see them are people who are fascinated by violence or weapons.
The question raised by the authority is whether the very act of advertising might be seen as condoning or inciting violent behaviour. If so, it says, that will be a matter for Parliament. It seems that the ball is in our court, and I
hope that we as Members of Parliament, and the Minister as a representative of the Government, will accept the responsibility.
When we debated the matter two years ago, the Minister said:
The advertisement of weapons by post is not the problem. The mischief lies with those who seek to obtain unauthorised weapons by whatever means."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1356.]
That is true, but temptation can encourage undesirable behaviour. Let me give an example. When I took a group of youngsters to Germany on an exchange visit, I was horrified to find when we returned to our minibus that one of them was showing his friends a knife with an


extremely long blade. I said, "Where on earth did that come from?" He had walked straight into a shop and bought it, because it was advertised. No questions had been asked, but there is no doubt that that young lad had no legitimate reason for having the knife.
We went back to the shop, and after some discussion the knife was taken back and the youngster's money refunded. I suspect, however, that at home he would not have gone into a shop of that kind, because he would have known that someone would ask questions. I am worried about places that people can enter anonymously—certainly in a large city—without the fear that others will ask questions. It is even more horrifying to think that young people could reply to advertisements and be able, impersonally and without scrutiny, to obtain such weapons.
As the Minister said, we should be worried about those who seek such weapons, but it behoves us to try to prevent their being available. We should end the encouragement, or tolerance, of availability of weapons that appear to incite violence. We have suggested four possible measures. The first is a ban on the sale of knives to people under a specified age. Perhaps 16 is a safe age but there could be a feeling that the age should be rather higher than that, possibly 18. However, there are complications with such definitions. We need to explore those issues to reach an effective conclusion, simply because that would
close some doors.
As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is not in his place, rightly suggested, one can do a great deal of violence with a bread knife. However, I do not think that an advertisement for a knife that is to be used for cutting bread encourages a macho image. It does not give rise to the same intolerance, the feeling that such weapons are around in society, that is engendered by advertisements for weapons that are clearly intended for violent purposes. That is an important matter.
The second element is the advertisement of knives, and the third is the proscription of military style knives and swords, martial arts weapons and deactivated and replica guns under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The other item was a warning label on all knives that are covered by section 139 of that Act. Should we not give an explicit warning that society does not expect such items to be carried and used?
In the context of the intervention by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, other measures need to be taken to help to break the knife culture which has affected parts of our society and which puts the police and public at risk. I agree that young people will use bread knives or screwdrivers, but so will adults who are inclined to violence. Some people will always be violent in any society, however perfect and stringent its laws. We must have the legislation and the action that are needed to tackle such people, and we must reduce the temptation or encouragement to others to be drawn into violent behaviour of any sort. We are obliged to do that, and we shall certainly seek to assist in the endeavour upon which the hon. Lady has launched us with her Bill.
We hope that good will on both sides will lead to some of those measures being included in the Bill. However, I make it absolutely clear that we do not wish to place

obstacles in the way of the Bill or to push amendments, however desirable, if they would delay or endanger the legislation. If the Bill has to have additional elements, they must be introduced by agreement and consensus throughout the House, which will allow us to move more quickly than appeared possible a short time ago. If there are difficulties, they must not be allowed to delay the Bill
in any way.
If some elements need further time the Home Secretary will have our assistance and encouragement in presenting measures at another time. The Bill provides a clear opportunity, and if it is possible to take it by agreement we should not allow the chance to pass. We must go as far as is possible. As I have said, we need to reduce the environment of violence in which the carrying of knives and their use can be tolerated.
I worked with young people for many years before entering the House. We neglect the positive side of young people and their potential for good at our peril. Just two years ago, the Prince's Trust published a report prepared by the accountancy firm of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. That report demonstrated that positive work with young people is cost-effective in preventing crime. It looked at crime in terms of its cost to society, but, of course, the wider cost to society cannot be measured so easily and it is an even greater threat to people's security and ability to enjoy their lives in the peace that they have a
right to expect.
The message of that Prince's Trust report was very much that the devil makes work for idle hands and that prevention is better than cure. We need to remove temptations and reduce encouragement. We need to change the present situation, in which all too often "Lord of the Flies" is the parable for our times—except that instead of a desert island, our young people are abandoned on the streets of our inner cities and, sadly, in small towns and villages as well. We need to provide positive encouragement to bring out the good in young people, to discourage the bad and to create a positive environment. Those things need to be done to supplement and complement the legislative action that the hon. Lady asks us to take by introducing the Bill.
I therefore support the Bill. I hope that the Home Secretary will do three things—and that we will have a positive response on them from the Minister—first, support the Bill in a speedy passage through the House; secondly, join in the cross-party consensus to take the Bill further with some of the measures that I and the hon. Lady have referred to; and, thirdly, take the initiative to provide support and encouragement across all Government Departments to support people at the sharp end at a local level: the police, local authorities, youth workers, teachers, local residents and those who work in many of our public services. It is the combination and partnership of all of us in society—at central Government level in Parliament and in such roles at local level—that will succeed in changing the culture, which certainly needs to change.

Mr. Piers Merchant: The Bill is timely, relevant and balanced. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on introducing it today, and on the excellent way in which she presented it.
It is timely because it comes soon after the tragic killing of Philip Lawrence, which has been mentioned, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) in a moving speech. The Bill also comes after a number of highly publicised knifing cases—sometimes bringing death, sometimes serious injury—including those of police officers. The whole nation's conscience has been jarred by those acts of crime, so the Bill also responds to a public demand for action. The Bill also comes at a time when the use of knives in crime has reached a high level, and when the sale of knives ensures that they still proliferate.
The Bill is relevant not just because it is a reaction to immediate popular concern, but because it comes in the wake of considerable examination of the problem of knife crime by the Home Office. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for their work in driving both study and action in the right direction to ensure that legislative steps are taken to deal with knife crime.
The Bill also responds to the concerns of the police force and chief police officers, who have been aware of this mounting problem, and who have rightly called for action. It is also relevant because statistics show that, in the past 10 years, knife crime has increased and is still a serious problem.
.
Taking murders in London, for example, about 74 of the 162 murders in the last year for which figures are available were caused by knives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, knives have played a part in about one third of total crimes of violence against the person, which shows the extent of the problem.
Another way of illustrating that point is to consider the national homicide figures. In 1994, the last year for which figures are available, 236 of the total number of homicides were stabbings. If we compare that with the other causes of death, we will find how much greater is the proportion caused by knives and pointed instruments. There were 111 deaths caused by being hit or kicked—the next category–106 stranglings, 63 shootings, 56
coshings and 23 poisonings. That shows the magnitude of the problem.
This is a balanced Bill. It is necessary to balance the need of society to protect the innocent against crime with the legitimate right of ordinary individuals to use instruments that, in other hands, could be deadly. The Bill is balanced in that respect. We would be wise to remember the complete lack of balance in the gun laws in the United States, where there is a direct correlation between the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms and the availability of those weapons. Luckily, that has never happened in this country, because of our strict laws in that respect.
The Bill is balanced because it brings penalties and police powers more into line with what is needed. It does that in a sensitive way; it does not go over the top. It is important to keep the array of penalties and powers in line with those in other areas of the criminal law. To give the power of arrest to the police when they find people carrying weapons in public is relevant. To double the penalty for unlawfully carrying weapons is commendable.
The Bill is also balanced as a deterrent. Of course, deterrence is about balance. A person intent on crime has to balance the rewards from carrying out that crime with the penalties that might follow. The Bill will send out a

strong message to those who are tempted to buy and carry knives that there is a severe penalty for doing so, because society rightly will not tolerate it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam was right to raise a legal question about the sale of knives to under–16s. I hope that we can include in the Bill a much stricter regulation to control that. Where knives exist and can be purchased, inevitably they will be carried; where they are carried, inevitably there will be crime and a risk to innocent people.
I want to give an example of the availability of knives and pointed instruments and the balance between holding them legitimately and using them illegitimately. This morning, I went around my house and made an inventory of my armoury. I did not realise I had one until I did this.
I found that I had in my possession three swords, a sharp grafting knife, another extremely sharp garden knife, two Stanley knives, a bread knife, about six other sharp kitchen knives, four surgical scalpels, five chisels and a number of other sharp and vicious instruments. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have not brought any of them with me today. I never take them out of the house.
I keep and use those instruments for legitimate purposes, most of which are obvious. However, in case one is not obvious I should explain that I hold surgical scalpels because they are useful for cutting pieces out of newspapers. I like to keep a collection of reports on what I have said, so that in my more lonely hours I can stare at them.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: What about the swords?

Mr. Merchant: Two of the three swords are Sikh scimitars, which were presented to me—one of them is engraved—for work with the Sikh community. A friend of mine, who happens to be an expert on knives, was fascinated by the swords and took one away because he wanted to know what metal they were made of and whether they could be sharpened. I allowed him to do it, and he came back and told me that not only was it blunt—as I knew—but that it could not be sharpened. The quality of the metal was so poor that the sword would snap if any attempt was made, and that reassured me. My third sword is an historical sword, which, I am glad to say, is also completely blunt and unusable.
I shall end by illustrating the difference between holding such weapons and using them. There would be cause for question if I were suddenly to be seen in the high street of Beckenham with my loins girded, waving in my hand one of my swords, or if I were to appear at the door of the prospective Labour candidate in my constituency, holding in my hand a scalpel. That shows the difference between the legitimate possession of weapons that could be and are dangerous, and their illegitimate carrying and use.
It is very important that the balance is maintained and—if I may make a pun—sharpened by the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on promoting it. It is slightly overdue, but I hope that it will form a part of the Government's very commendable tough stand against crime. I hope that the Bill will have a swift and successful passage through the House.

Mr. Don Touhig: May I start by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for leaving the Chamber during this short debate? A number of villages in my constituency have had no electricity for the past four days, and they needed me to get involved to help them out.
It is important that we send the right message from the House on this issue. It is important that we make it clear to those who would carry weapons with the intention of harming or endangering anyone that we will enact laws that will make them pay a high price for doing so. The second most popular subjects of letters in my constituency post bag are matters related to crime and to law and order.
The Bill is very important, as it addresses some of the problems we face. The public need to be reassured that Parliament is going to take the issue very seriously. A number of hon. Members have referred to the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, and no one who witnessed the scenes on television or read in the newspapers of his terrible death could fail to be moved. The great trauma that these incidents cause to families and communities can be almost too great to measure.
My eldest daughter and son-in-law were mugged at knifepoint during a trip to Paris. My daughter, rather foolishly, chased after the mugger and demanded that the purse, which belonged to her mother, be returned to her, even if the mugger kept the money. The trauma and distress that that caused was immense for them and for the whole family.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was asked about exemptions for people who lawfully carry knives—such as scouts—and
said that provisions would be made for them. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred to the fact that he keeps scalpels in his house to enable him to take cuttings from newspapers.
I wonder whether it will be possible in Committee to highlight the fact that there are many safe and sharp cutting edges that cannot be used in an offensive manner. My second son, who is a student, has a part-time job at a cash-and-carry firm, and he carries a knife to open packages and so on. I am in possession of a very neat little plastic-covered instrument with a fine blade that can cut open all sorts of packages. I commend that instrument to the hon. Member for Beckenham as a much safer way to take cuttings from newspapers.
Perhaps that matter might be explored in Committee. We need an opportunity to show those companies and organisations which legitimately need staff to carry knives that they might find a safer method of doing so.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the real point is that there is a difference between people carrying something lawfully in the circumstances that he has described and people who have no good reason to be carrying a knife? For example, a person walking into a shopping centre with a knife in his jacket, which is open, clearly has no lawful reason or good excuse to be carrying that knife. That is quite different from someone who is going about their normal business or taking part in a hobby or some other activity. We are concerned about people carrying knives without a good excuse.

Mr. Touhig: Yes, I agree. We should provide for people who lawfully carry knives and weapons of that nature. I fully understand that. I was trying to point out that perhaps we should highlight the fact that there are safer ways to open packaging and so forth than with a sharp and dangerous blade, which could be used offensively. I hope that that will come out in Committee.
I warmly welcome the measure. If it is speedily enacted, it will be welcomed by the people I represent, and by people throughout the country.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for bringing this Bill before the House. It is not the first time that she has brought legislation on law and order before us. She was successful with her Prisoners (Return to Custody) Act 1995.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) spoke movingly and compassionately about Philip Lawrence, and said how important it was for us to transmit the right moral code to children. That is a role for parents as well as for teachers. My hon. Friend also mentioned the 10 commandments, and asked how many people can recite them, which is a reasonable question. I suspect that it is not many.
The spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), mentioned the Advertising Standards Authority, and he was right to say that it has not played a proactive role in preventing irresponsible advertising. I have been particularly disturbed to see advertising for Rambo knives and so forth, which are available by mail order.
I am also concerned that, while such knives are not generally or easily available in shops here—clearly there are instances in which they are
available—they can easily be obtained on the continent. A few months ago, when walking in Rouen and Dieppe—the latter is easily accessible from Newhaven and Rouen is a quick train journey from Dieppe—I noticed how easy it is to obtain knives and guns.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can comment on the controls at border posts, particularly at ports, to ensure that knives—and, indeed, guns, although those do not come within the remit of this Bill—cannot easily be imported, perhaps unwittingly, by individuals attracted by some of the bright displays in the stores.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) mentioned his Stanley knives and swords.I am pleased to hear that those are blunt and would self-destruct if sharpened. In the wrong hands, knives can be a dangerous weapon, whereas in the right hands they are useful tools.
I seek reassurance that the Bill is broad enough to include screwdrivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North mentioned the case of a schoolboy who had been attacked with a screwdriver. Judging from reports in the press, that is a growing trend. It also shows that the police must use discretion, as they usually do, when determining whether a tool is a tool or will he used as a weapon.
We know that Commissioner Bill Taylor, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, welcomes the Bill. On the "Today" programme on Radio 4 on 13 December, he said:
We think these measures, that is essentially giving us a very clear power of arrest and indeed looking again at the sentences, this will reflect the concern that people have and the gravity with which society regards these offences and these are sensible steps and we support them".
It is good that the measures appear before the House.
While this Bill has been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, it follows on from tough legislation from the Home Office introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister. We have benefited in Lichfield from a grant of just under £100,000 for closed circuit television. We have additional police officers on Britain's streets. The Criminal Justice Act means that Britain is leading the world in the use of DNA technology to supplement fingerprinting. We have stop-and-search laws to anticipate violence, as well as laws on aggravated trespass. That shows the Government's clear commitment to law and order.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned the Advertising Standards Authority. In an intervention, I said that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have been exercising effective control to stop the advertising of knives and associated weapons on television and radio.
The Opposition spokesman was right to say that, even if the Advertising Standards Authority wanted to impose a ban, it could not enforce one except through the voluntary assent of its members, because it would have no force in law. Such bans exist under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and will be continued under the Broadcasting Bill which is currently in another place. For the sake of consistency and common sense, if the sort of bans currently in place under the Broadcasting Act are not in this Bill, they could be introduced in Committee. That would create no new precedent, and would reflect, to judge from today's debate, the will of the House.
As I have said, I am concerned about the sale of such weapons in Europe. I have already asked the Minister whether there can be controls to ensure that knives are not imported from Europe. Is there any possibility of the Home Office making representations at the Council of Ministers? Will my hon. Friend the Minister speak to his counterparts in the European Union about whether similar bans could be put in place throughout Europe?
The problems in the United Kingdom with the use of knives exist, too, in other parts of Europe. If Britain is introducing ground-breaking legislation, and it is ground-breaking legislation for Europe, I would like similar laws to be introduced in the rest of Europe. Otherwise, such weapons will be imported.
The Labour party has called for greater restrictions on the sale of knives. I welcome that. It has already been pointed out that hon. Members will still need to use kitchen knives and axes in their homes and gardens. Farmers will need machetes to cut down trees and scrub. Discretion will always have to be used.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam was able to reassure me on the use of penknives. I promise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to bring
out my penknife again, having received your strict admonition not to do so in the Chamber.
I am pleased, however, that the use of penknives will continue to be legal unless one uses them in a threatening manner. I understand that 3 inches is the maximum legal length for a blade. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep that measurement and not turn it into a complicated decimalised restriction of three times 2.54 cm. I do not know why the legal limit is 3 inches, because a 2-inch blade can do a lot of damage as well.
Three inches is also the legal limit in many states of the United States. If you will forgive my indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it strikes me as incredible that this country goes out of its way to metricate everything, whereas the United States, which is capable of sending satellites round the earth as well as unmanned missions to Mars, Venus and, most recently, Jupiter, operates happily with miles, feet and inches, pounds weight, and gallons, although the last are exactly seven eighths of an imperial gallon, for reasons that I shall not bore the House with now.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will keep the legal limit at 3 inches. The law should remain flexible enough so that a police officer can arrest someone for using a penknife blade shorter than 3 inches if it is
used in a threatening manner.
The use of knives in homicides is a growing trend, but statistics show that the trend is not even. For example, in 1994, which is the most recent year for which figures for England and Wales are available, 677 murders were committed, of which 236 involved sharp instruments. I have before me a schedule from 1985 onwards, which shows that the number of murders in this country is not necessarily rising. It is an uneven but nevertheless consistently high rate. In 1994 in England and Wales, 35 per cent. of murders involved sharp instruments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, Scotland already has legislation in place. The reason may be that, last year, there was a huge increase, with 52 per cent. of all murders involving the use of knives. It thus becomes clear that this Bill must be introduced quickly.
I welcome the fact that both main parties in the House support the Bill. Despite occasions like Question Time, when television and radio focus on the adversarial nature of politics in this place, when it is in the nation's interest to introduce legislation or discuss important matters, there is often co-operation between the parties. I hope that that, too, will occasionally be transmitted to the viewing public. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her good fortune in the ballot and the fact that she chose to use it for such a good purpose. Like other hon. Members, I wholeheartedly support the Bill.
It is important to explain what the Bill seeks to achieve because, since its publication, one or two myths have attached themselves to it. It is said that the Bill seeks to go much further than my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam intends, and that it somehow attacks civil liberties. As my hon. Friend said, English Heritage has raised concerns that it could no longer organise tournaments or historic battle replicas without its officials being arrested. That is nonsense, and it was never the


intention of the Bill. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) that his black Swiss army knife, which is most unusual, might be made illegal. His only worry should be that it appears to have a heart on the back of the blade, which might show that it was a free gift from Guinness; I hope that he has declared it in the Register of Members' Interests, or he will be in trouble with the Privileges Committee.
There are some dubious matters that we need to address. Earlier today, I spoke to a world-famous explorer. He is concerned that the ceremonial parang that was given to him by a Malayan chieftain would be subject to confiscation. It is important to destroy those myths. If they were true, if our own Serjeant at Arms were to walk out with his sword he would get nicked by one of the police officers as soon as he left the precincts of the Palace. However, I am quite sure that he is safe to continue his ancient duty.
Some concerns about the Bill have appeared in the press. One example is an article that appeared in Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. Its readership includes fishermen and those who shoot. They have a legitimate use for knives and are concerned that any decision by the House may affect their perfectly legitimate use of such weapons.
The shooting community is always somewhat alarmed about knee-jerk reactions from Governments in the wake of tragedies such as the death of the headmaster. As a consequence of the massacre at Hungerford, when a deranged man, who was armed with a kalashnikov and had been given a licence to possess a weapon, killed so many people, there are now onerous restrictions on how those in the shooting world store and look after their weapons.
Once again the article has got it wrong. It states:
The police could use this new power to harass anyone".
That is clearly not the case. There is a case for concern that anyone stopped by a policeman and found to be in possession of a knife has to show good cause for having that knife. When that was put into law, which I suspect was in 1984, there was considerable concern that the onus of innocence would be on the accused and not on the prosecution.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my hon. Friend
aware that there are strict rules governing the circumstances in which the police may conduct a stop and search? They cannot stop people because
they do not like the colour of their eyes, their long hair or the fact they may be wearing torn jeans. They may not stop somebody because he or she is known to have previous convictions. They must act only on receiving information that a certain individual is carrying a knife. There is no question of returning to the old and much disliked sus laws.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that the police have strict codes, and I am certain that they will enforce them rigorously. However, certain cases have been mentioned, such as that of a farm worker who was arrested because he went into a pub after work with a knife in his bag. He was eventually acquitted on trial. There was also the case of the Scottish motorist who carried a knife in his car because there were many deer

on the road in that part of Scotland and he was continually finding wounded deer that he needed to dispatch immediately. When he was stopped by a policeman, that explanation was not accepted. A certain amount of good sense by the police is required to ensure that the Bill does not attack personal liberty.
On the advertising and mail order of weapons, I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). However, I have a natural reluctance to start banning anything, and if we ban advertising we shall move slightly in the direction of attacking the freedom of the press.

Mr. Fabricant: Following that argument,
would my hon. Friend reverse some of the rules in the Broadcasting Act 1990 and permit the advertising of knives on radio and television? Would he permit the advertising of cigarettes on radio and television, as that is currently banned?

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are considerable restrictions on the broadcast media but not on the print media, which have a long history of freedom. I was making the point that a ban on advertising or on a particular form of mail order would be difficult and complicated to effect. There may be virtues in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but, if he tried to hitch it to the Bill, there would be a danger of causing
undue delay to the Bill's progress.

Mr. Michael: I made it clear that it was not our intention to delay the Bill, but I welcome the hon. Lady's wish to have such a provision in it. The issue has been around a long time. Advertisements of the kind to which hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have referred are unacceptable. As voluntary regulation has not succeeded, surely we should extend a control on the broadcast media that is regarded as reasonable and sensible and make it a hardly intrusive control on the printed media.

Mr. Atkinson: That idea would lead the Bill into difficult and complicated territory. If the Bill becomes a vehicle to impose a new form of censorship on the press, I suspect that it will progress more slowly. The Bill is simple and good as it is. I hope that it will serve as a deterrent, particularly as it increases fines.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman describe the nature of the threat that he makes? Does he mean that a ban on unacceptable advertisements would lead him to undertaking wrecking action? What is he getting at?

Mr. Atkinson: I do not intend to engage in any wrecking action. I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman that the idea of introducing a form of censorship into press advertising is new and would open up a large issue, which would have to be seriously debated. I share the hon. Gentleman's offence at such advertisements, and I hope that the Advertising Standards Authority and others will take the message from the House that those advertisements are desperately unpopular. I urge my hon. Friend not to permit such amendments in Committee. If the Bill is kept simple, I am sure that it will travel swiftly to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I add my congratulations to those given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on the way in which she has brought the Bill before the House. Discussions between my hon. Friend, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, our officials and me have been extremely positive and constructive. I am pleased that we have been able to reach this Second Reading as a result of the work done between us.
The carrying of knives is a real problem, recently highlighted by Philip Lawrence's death. I was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), who knows only too well the effect of that tragedy on his constituents and constituency, and particularly on people who were close to Philip Lawrence as members of his family or as beneficiaries of his considerate and excellent teaching over the years.
All of us—parents, politicians and the police—must play our part in tackling the problem. Parents must teach their children from a very early age the difference between right and wrong, as hon. Members have said today. Carrying knives for no good reason is plainly and definitely wrong. Politicians must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers that they need to catch and punish those who will not obey the law, and the police and the courts must ensure that they use those powers to the full, when necessary.
The Bill will strengthen the powers of both police and the courts. It will send a clear message to the thugs and the bullies who carry knives. It is a statement: "Your crimes will not pay. You will be caught, and you will be punished."
I am very pleased by the success of the recent knife amnesty, which has been assisted by the Daily Mirror and fully supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and by me. More than 38,000 articles were handed in. The amnesty has been especially successful when forces have worked closely with their local media.
The police are not simply measuring the success of the initiative by the number of knives handed in. They also believe that the amnesty has helped to change attitudes. They hear anecdotes about knife sellers being more careful to whom they sell their knives. In one case, a dealer has stopped selling knives altogether.
The police have been impressed by the range of knives handed in. The majority of articles were not knives of the kitchen variety. Machetes, flick knives, gravity knives and at least one Samurai sword have been handed in. In addition, a number of replica firearms and the magazine from an automatic weapon have been handed in. That is encouraging, but in terms of a carrot-and-stick approach, the amnesty is clearly a carrot.
Since taking office, the Government have taken firm action on a range of law and order issues. In our projected White Paper, we intend to put before the House even tougher policies on sentencing and bringing criminals to hook. We took firm action on the problem of knife carrying in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which we banned 14 weapons, including sword sticks. We had already banned flick knives and gravity knives.
I have listened with interest to hon. Members who have suggested that we should have specific lists of weapons that should be banned. It was interesting to hear the story

about a screwdriver from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). The definition of a knife under our law is a bladed or sharply
pointed article. Therefore, in some circumstances, items that would not immediately be recognisable as knives could come under our penalties and our legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire also referred to border posts.
Our Customs and Excise officers are always vigilant and, although we cannot ban the importation of items that are legal in this country, we can and do prevent the arrival on our shores—as far as we are able—of those items that are banned here.
The Government have also made it clear that we would consider adding further items to the banned list of weapons. I share hon. Members' abhorrence of Rambo survival knives, commando daggers and the like. Those items have no place in a civilised society. I am sure, however, that the House will understand that it is genuinely difficult to compile a fully definitive list of items to ban. In many cases, it is very difficult to come up with a legal definition of them that would not also encompass ordinary kitchen knives. However, I can assure the House that we are continuing to examine that possibility.
I have noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said about the sale of knives to children. We are seriously considering proposals that would ban the sale of knives to youngsters. If the proposals are workable, they could perhaps be included in Committee. That would be a major change and would require careful consideration; but, frankly, young children do not need razor-sharp kitchen knives or commando-style daggers, and it is very hard to justify why they should be able to buy them.
Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), have spoken about the issue of advertisements. I urge anyone with a complaint about knife advertisements to take them up with the Advertising Standards Authority. I am glad to note that the ASA took exception to the use of the words "ready for action" in an advertisement, and had them withdrawn. Advertising regulation is, of course, done on a self-regulatory basis, but if it can be effective in cases such as the one I have cited, I have some confidence that it will be in other cases that, quite reasonably, cause concern.
I suspect that insufficient use is made of the ASA in relation to knife advertisements. I note with interest that the ASA investigates advertising without having received a complaint so that it can ensure that the British code of advertising is observed. It will do so if there is public concern about a certain issue, and considerable public concern has been expressed about knives.
One advertisement has been brought to my attention which causes me some concern. The ASA is aware of it, and I hope that it will take action. The wording of the advertisement includes the following:
A well balanced weapon with a wicked double-edged 7" blade, made with one thing in mind.
That is the nature of the wording of the advertisement. If anything, that wording is more objectionable than the words "ready for action". I should be extremely concerned if the ASA were unable to take action in such a case.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he has responded to this part of the debate. My concern is the ASA's clear statement that it does not have the power to act in the way that he, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and I wish that it would. Does that statement not make it absolutely clear that it cannot act authoritatively, which we wish it to do, until legislation gives it that power?

Mr. Kirkhope: That is a matter for further discussion and debate. That power is not specifically related to the Bill, and it may not be appropriate that it should be. However, I am expressing my concern to the hon. Gentleman about one element of the issue in relation to the ASA.
There are many knives and other sharp instruments that have a legitimate, everyday use, such as machetes, carving knives and butcher's hooks. It would clearly he difficult to ban the sale of those, but we must ensure that people who use or carry them illegally are punished. Ultimately, it is not the knife that wreaks havoc but the hand that wields it. The police tell us that the majority of the knives that are carried and used in stabbings are domestic knives. Apparently, Stanley knives are much favoured by young thugs, and carving knives are used in a depressingly high number of stabbings.
It is an offence under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 to carry an offensive weapon in public. Offensive weapons include knives, but the prosecution must prove that the accused intended to use the knife to cause injury. Of course, that may not always be possible. That is why the Government introduced a lesser offence under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of carrying a knife in public without good cause. In those cases, the prosecution does not have to prove intent.
The penalties for the two offences reflect their differing gravity. Where intent can he proved, the maximum penalty is two years in prison or a fine. Where intent cannot he proved, the maximum penalty is only a £1,000 fine.
By coincidence, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wrote to the Association of Chief Police Officers a few days before the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, asking if it believed that the penalty should be increased. In light of events that weekend, the association replied very speedily, agreeing that the time had come to increase the penalties. Illicit knife carrying—even when there is no evidence that the carrier intended to use his knife to cause injury—is a very serious offence. Knife-carrying yobs must be sent the clear message that they may end up in prison.
My hon. Friend's Bill will increase the maximum penalty for that offence to two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. Carrying an offensive weapon in public with intent to cause harm remains the more serious of the two offences and I agree with my hon. Friend that the maximum penalty in that case should be increased to reflect that fact. That is why the Bill raises the penalty to four years in prison or a fine, or both.
As I said earlier, many people carry knives for perfectly legitimate reasons. Carpenters may need to carry Stanley knives and saws, farmers may carry machetes, and ordinary men and women who have bought kitchen knives need to get them home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, those who are engaged

in legitimate sporting activities—such as fisherman—may also have good reason to carry knives. I am sure that the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is not designed to affect them.
Knives are also worn for religious reasons—such as the kirpans worn by Sikhs—or as part of a national costume. For example, the Scotsman carries his skean dhu in his kilt stocking—as we have seen quite a lot in the past few days. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham need have no fears about the
wonderful tournaments that are held in his constituency and elsewhere by English Heritage.
Those people's position will not change. The innocent have nothing to fear from the legislation, but the guilty will have plenty to worry about. Anyone who is charged with carrying a knife in public will still have the defence that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the knife on his person. There are specific defences in relation to work, religion and national costume, as I mentioned. However, the onus is on the knife-carrier to prove his defence. It is right that, when there is any doubt, the courts should have the final say.
I congratulate the police service on the work it does catching criminals. The police have also made it clear that they would welcome the specific power of arrest without warrant in the case of offences of carrying an offensive weapon or knife in public. At present, the police must obtain a warrant, which is simply not practical in most cases. They may be lucky and find that the particular circumstances of the case allow them to use other powers of arrest that do not apply specifically to those offences, but that is too unpredictable. The police need clear powers of arrest.
The Bill will provide a clear power of arrest for those offences, which means that, rather than being sent on his way with a summons, the knife-carrier is likely to be taken to the police station. Importantly, it will also enable the police to investigate in a formal setting whether other more serious offences have been committed. In practice, the police will be more able to establish whether a knife-carrier intended to use his knife to cause injury and whether, as a result, a prosecution under the more serious of the two offences dealing with that activity would be appropriate.
Hon. Members have referred to the ACPO crime committee chairman, Commissioner Bill Taylor, and his remarks on the "Today" programme. It is perfectly clear that the police support such measures and it is clear that the people of this country support them also. I have, I hope, made it clear that the Government support and will assist the legislation, and I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has expressed his support.
The wholehearted backing of the Bill will send a clear message out into the community: people who illegally carry knives deserve to be caught and punished—and they will be. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I travelled through the snow that afflicted Kent this morning in order to support the Bill. I am one of its sponsors, because I believe that the carrying of offensive weapons is a continuing problem that must be tackled. Some of us, indeed, would argue that it is getting worse. I welcome


provisions to strengthen the powers that the police need to arrest without a warrant those suspected of carrying knives, and the introduction of heavier penalties.
The Kent county constabulary has gone to the lengths of purchasing stab-proof vests for officers, some of whom have gone further and obtained their own private equipment. In north-west Kent alone during the past year, the police have had to process 26 offenders, and there must have been cases of the use or carrying of other offensive weapons.
Just before Christmas, the police encountered a man attacking another with a machete at Dartford railway station, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who is also a sponsor of the Bill. It turned out to be simply a case of the criminal fraternity sorting out their own problems. It may be thought that they deserved it, but any members of the public who were in the area would have been at considerable risk as well. The carrying of such dangerous weapons seems to be increasing.
I had some anxieties about the Bill. What about law-abiding people? For instance, there is a religious requirement for devout Sikhs to carry the kirpan, a short sword. The Bill does not deal with that, however, because devout Sikhs are law-abiding. Similarly, it has long been traditional for scouts who engage in woodcraft to carry and use sheath knives, and other similar knives. The scouts, however, are a responsible organisation, and have not worn the sheath knives in public for many years. The holding of them is subject to secure conditions: the knives are taken to camp, for example, where they are used in accordance with the strict regulations for which the scouts have always been well known. In this Bill we are talking not about law-abiding people, but about hot-headed youngsters who think it clever to carry and, indeed, use offensive weapons.
I strongly support the idea of banning sales of offensive weapons to those under 18, and I was encouraged by what my hon. Friend the Minister said about that. We are making progress, not least with the amnesty in regard to the return of weapons. In my constituency, a rather heavy container was taken from Gravesend police station to the Kent county constabulary headquarters in Maidstone; it was full of offensive weapons.
I look forward to the Bill's progress and hope that the House will be able to deal firmly with the upsurge in the carrying of offensive weapons.

Mr. John Marshall: I apologise to the House for arriving late: my attendance at surgery went on for some time. I support the Bill because it deals with a problem that concerns a large number of
people. It has been brought to the fore by the tragic death of Mr. Lawrence, but it deals with part of a problem that has been around for a long time. I used to live in Glasgow, and I remember standing at a bus stop in Sauchiehall street on a Saturday night and being able to guarantee that not one knife but two, three or four would be seen by 10

o'clock. There is a great problem and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on her success in the ballot and on her wisdom in presenting such a Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful to all
those hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. What I have heard leaves me in no doubt about its great importance. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), for expressing his interest and his determination seriously to consider proposals banning the sale of knives to
youngsters. As he knows, I have privately been pressing him to do that. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) shares my wish to ban such sales.
Knifings have been growing, and a knife culture has been developing in the playground. Children from the age of 12 to 15 are buying knives because they find them attractive in the shops. They are more fun than a kitchen knife and some shopkeepers have no scruples about making money. Those facts lead to widespread tragedies. I hope that dealing with those issues will be an important
part of the Bill.
Powers of arrest are crucial. It is frustrating to the police to stop a young person whom they have reason to suspect is carrying a knife for no good reason only to find that they are impotent to deal with that serious matter. The legislation must incorporate heavy penalties that will convey the clear message to all the thugs and hooligans that if they carry a knife without a good reason they will face gaol. That is a serious penalty, but society wants to see justice and it is important to have sentences that reflect society's concern.
We need to ensure that a young person who carries a knife without a good reason will no longer get away with it. He will face a sentence of up to two years, but if he is carrying a knife and it can be shown that he intends to use it, he could face four years in gaol. Such powers are crucial and will change the culture of our society. I hope that we shall concentrate on the background of such young people and try to give them greater stability in their lives. They need secure homes, caring parents and schools.
Teachers, people in the world outside and political parties are all working towards one end—to create a society in which law abiding people can walk on the streets without fearing for their lives, and without the fear of suffering injury or intimidation or of being robbed at knife point. All that must stop, and I am
grateful to hon. Members for helping to bring that about.
I look forward to the opportunity of discussing the Bill in Committee where we can explore the ideas that we have been debating. I hope that the resulting legislation will benefit this country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question,

That the Bill be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: We had a long debate on the Bill last Friday, but I was not able to take part. In the remaining seconds, I wish to register my opposition to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). I oppose it because of the way in which it will affect my constituents, especially people who work outdoors: those involved in farming and forestry.
I have literally only a few seconds to register that point, which I was not able to do at the last debate. The Bill will cause tremendous hardship to people who work outdoors. It is not, as was suggested in the last debate, simply a question of—

Order.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 2 February.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee of Privileges on 1st November in the last session of Parliament and not reported to the House and the related Memorandum be laid upon the Table and referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges for examination by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, the Speaker shall not later than Ten o'clock put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Gummer relating to Local Government Finance.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Scottish Newcastle and Courage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this
House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. John Heppell: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue in the House.
My reason for asking for this debate is not just the effect that the matter has had locally, with all brewing, all bottling and all distribution to stop at the Home Brewery site; it is not just the fact that the decision brings to an end a tradition of brewing in the Nottingham conurbation that goes back hundreds of years; it is not just the loss of the Robin Hood logo, which clearly identified the beer as a Nottingham product, in a secret deal of which I have no details; it is not just the loss of consumer choice and pub closures; it is not even the loss of more than 200 jobs, especially those in my constituency, which has the highest unemployment rate in the east midlands-higher than anywhere in Scotland or Wales.
Nor is my reason just to attack Scottish Newcastle for the effect that its policies are having nationally, with nine breweries reduced to seven, with 41 distribution points reduced to 28, with more than 200 jobs lost in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), with the loss of consumer choice, with the effect on beer prices, and with the loss of more than 1,600 jobs nationally. If this matter concerned only Scottish Newcastle's actions, it would be a debate of little significance—we should know by now where Scottish Newcastle is coming from and where it is going.
What makes the debate so important is the fact that Scottish Newcastle has an accomplice in this affair, who aided and abetted it in obtaining a bigger share of the market, not by competition, but by acquisition. That accomplice must share responsibility for everything that has happened as a result of the merger; an accomplice who effectively drove a dray horse through the Government's policy of encouraging competition.
I am sorry to say that that accomplice is the Government, in the person of the Under-Secretary for Corporate and Consumer Affairs. He sealed the fate of Home Brewery, my local brewery and Nottingham's local brewery, when, on 14 August last year, he decided not to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to concede that my predecessor in this office acted merely on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who is an independent agent?

Mr. Heppell: I was coming to that point, and I am glad that the Minister has raised it.
The Department of Trade and Industry press release said that the decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, and listed undertakings from Scottish Newcastle and Courage breweries. What the press release did not mention was that that was not the director general's original advice. That was clearly set out in a DTI press release on 21 July 1995. I shall quote it for the sake of the Minister:


The Director General of Fair Trading has recommended that the proposed acquisition should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because it would give rise to a significant concentration in the brewing industry with no compensating reduction in vertical links.
That seemed clear enough to me, but the then Minister rejected that advice. He took a political decision to reject the advice of the director general—advice that should have come as no surprise to him, as it came as no surprise to me.
Back in 1989 there was a similar attempted merger, which was referred to the MMC. I want to quote from the report on that. Paragraph 1.6 states:
We consider that the loss of the independence of one of the major suppliers to the market would reduce consumer choice and competition and thus be detrimental to the public interest.
Paragraph 1.8 states:
The creation of a second large group…would result in increased difficulty of supply for other brewers and distributors.
Even more significant and relevant are the comments in paragraph 5.10:
The effect of the takeover would be not simply a reduction by one in the number of separate companies operating in the UK beer market but would constitute a major alteration in the structure of the market, reducing competitiveness in all sectors.
That was part of Scottish Newcastle's own evidence.
In paragraph 5.13, the report said:
Scottish and Newcastle believed that it was against the public
interest that such entry
to the market
should be achieved by acquisition instead of competition.
I could continue quoting. The report is littered with arguments by Scottish Newcastle against the merger. It is clear that it changed its position to suit its own convenience.
As I said, Scottish Newcastle's actions should come as
no surprise. Just this week my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) told me about the sense of betrayal still felt in their constituencies following the takeover of Matthew Brown by Scottish Newcastle six years ago. Before the takeover, Scottish Newcastle wrote to all the employees in Matthew Brown guaranteeing that brewing would continue at the brewery in Blackburn. Within six months, the brewery was closed. If that can happen despite the guarantee, I have little doubt of the consequences of the merger for Home Brewery, my local brewery.
Scottish Newcastle's actions were predictable; indeed, I predicted them last July. What was not predictable was the action of the then Minister. He chose 21 July as the day to announce that he was considering accepting undertakings from the breweries, rather than referring the merger to the MMC. He allowed just seven days for interested parties to submit their views—hardly what anyone would call meaningful consultation. By the end of that seven days, the House was in recess and there was no opportunity for me or any other hon. Member to raise the matter.
Even with that tight time scale, I and several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and members of the Nottinghamshire city council, wrote to the director gerieral saying that there was still a case for referral. I received a reply on 15 August. I was told that the Minister

decided to ask for representations on the text of the conditions for the undertakings on 4 August. On 14 August, he decided that he would allow the merger to go ahead. Effectively, I had no real opportunity to argue against that. The decision was taken despite the fact that 33 representations were made, and the overwhelming view was that the most appropriate action would be referral.
I have no doubt—and events bear me out—that the whole consultation exercise was a sham, and that Scottish and Newcastle had already received a nod and a wink from the Government that there would be no referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. There will be no referral for a merger that will put 30 per cent. of total beer sales in the hands of Scottish Courage, and will mean that two brewers will have more than 50 per cent. of the sales in this country.
The three conditions set down were designed to have a minimal effect. The first related to the new retail estates and Scottish Courage's 7,500 pubs. The total is actually more than that, as a reply from the Minister informed me. The company has been asked to get rid of 115 pubs, but that merely gives it an opportunity to get rid of its less profitable pubs. When a firm is supplying 7,500 different pubs, 115 is not a great number to have to get rid of.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right, but only half right. To that extent, he is half wrong. It is true that Scottish Courage will be required to reduce its tied estate by 115 pubs, but—and this is the important second limb of the undertaking—a limit was set at 2,624 on the maximum number of tied pubs that it could own.

Mr. Heppell: I do not dispute what the Minister has said, and nothing that I have said contradicts that. In answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister replied:
At the time of giving his advice to me on the Scottish and Newcastle/Courage merger, the Director General of Fair Trading estimated that the parties would between them have owned or supplied about 7,500 pubs, which included some 4,350 pubs owned by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. and supplied by Courage. This figure is not complete as it does not include all supply agreements entered into by the parties as part of their normal commercial activities."—[Official Report, 6 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 559.]
I recognise that the tied estate is only 2,624 pubs, but in reality, the figure is 7,500. The Minister is clear on that as well; otherwise, something is wrong with his answer. It is still correct to say that 115 pubs is not a great number at which to set the ceiling, but even then there was a get-out. Scottish and Newcastle could apply for a review if it thought that the circumstances had changed, and there was a further get-out in that there would definitely be a review after three years. So that undertaking was not going to bite hard on Scottish and Newcastle.
The third condition—the release of thousands of IEL tied pubs—was not a new undertaking, as the company had already decided to carry that out in March 1998. An existing undertaken was merely to be brought forward, so that, instead of releasing 500 pubs in each of two years, the company would be releasing the pubs in one year. Even after that, I expect that the vast majority of pubs will still end up being supplied by Scottish Courage. The condition did nothing in terms of vertical competition, and it was supposed to offset the horizontal competition.
I will quickly move on, as I recognise that I am running out of time. It seems to me that the Minister had no intention of referring the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If, in 1989, a similar takeover was referred to the MMC, why, in 1995, was this merger not referred? One of the significant reasons is the fact that, between 1989 and 1995, Scottish and Newcastle paid £320,000 to the Conservative party. Given the way that things have panned out, I have to think that that was a significant factor in the decision not to refer.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman dare not say that outside the protection of this Chamber.

Mr. Heppell: I have already said it outside the protection of this Chamber.
There has been much speculation locally about the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), because 10 per cent. of that donation went to his constituency. I do not think that that contribution made any difference to what has happened to Home Brewery. I said that to the hon. Member and I do not mind repeating it. The decision to close Home Brewery was not made locally, nor was the decision not to refer the merger to the MMC—it was made nationally and by the Minister. No pun is intended when I say that the fact that the merger was not referred leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
The hon. Member for Gedling has been lobbying to try to save jobs at Home Brewery. The problem is that he did not start his lobbying until very late on. In some respects, it was too late. My only criticism is that he gave people the false hope that the brewery would not close. According to an article in the Nottingham Evening Post of Tuesday 5 September 1995, the hon. Gentleman
has made 'vigorous representations' to Scottish and Newcastle about the future of the Daybrook site. The brewer's response appears to have encouraged him because he told the Post last month:There is no commercial logic in shutting the site down. My responsibility is to look after my constituents who work at Daybrook and there is no reason to think that the future is not a good one.'
My only criticism is that that made people think, "He is a Minister and part of the Government. He knows what is happening. The brewery is going to be safe." I know now that he is doing everything he can to ensure that, when those people are made redundant, they will have a chance to get back into training and employment as quickly as possible through the training and enterprise council.
But the decision that caused the closure of Home Brewery was the decision not to refer the merger to the MMC, and I am convinced that the Minister did not allow referral because it is a certainty that it would have turned it down. That is the evidence from the Director General of Fair Trading. In his report to the Minister, he gives enough reasons why it should have been referred.
I realise that I am not giving the Minister much time to respond, but I must quickly pay tribute to Gedling council, the local trade unionists and the work force for their efforts in trying to get something positive out of all this and to work towards the future, either to save the brewery or ensure that the site is used in a way that will ensure some employment is brought back into the area.
Finally, the Minister believes that his policy on competition is working. He has told me a great deal about how vertical competition has been stopped, but the policy has not stopped horizontal competition. In 1989, the six largest breweries controlled 77 per cent. of the market. By 1992, the five largest breweries—not six, but five—controlled 82 per cent. of the market. Today, the four largest—not the five or six largest—control 84 per cent. of the market. That is not dealing with competition and monopoly effectively.

The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John M. Taylor): I would have liked to congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) on securing this debate and to have had the opportunity to deal with him on terms and in good time. However, his bitterness, to which he referred, has soured the debate somewhat, and makes it necessary for me to defend, although he does not need it, my predecessor in this office, which I do 100 per cent. and wholeheartedly, notwithstanding the innuendoes of the hon. Gentleman.
I defend also the outstanding role of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). It is clear from even a cursory reading of the local press that he has played a leading role in trying to persuade Scottish Courage to stay on site, invest and expand—not only in recent months but in the years since the Home brewery was sold to Scottish and Newcastle by the Farr family. Everyone knows that he did everything he could as the local MP to fight for his constituents who work at the brewery. He has a well-earned reputation in the House for fighting for the interests of his constituents.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East leaves me with no option. Instead of turning to the arguments, I must deal with his outrageous suggestions
about donations.
Donations to the Conservative party are received each year from thousands of companies up and down the country. However, unlike in the Labour party, they do not buy any favours. Everyone knows full well that Labour is owned lock, stock and barrel by the unions, who provide 50 per cent. of the party's funds and sponsor two thirds of their Members of Parliament, including every elected member of the shadow Cabinet. In return, they get 50 per cent. of the vote at party conference, 50 per cent. of the seats on the party's national executive, and considerable influence in the election of the party's leader and deputy leader and the selection of parliamentary candidates.

Mr. Heppell: I agree with the Minister. There are clearly financial incentives. Does the Minister agree that all those things should be open to scrutiny? Will he go against the Prime Minister and say that all donations to political parties should be referred to Nolan or some other committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We ought to come back to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Taylor: In that spirit, I recognise hon. Members' concerns about the loss of jobs that will result from the recent reorganisation of Scottish Courage. Such losses are regrettable, but it is important to recognise that industry has to operate in a very competitive environment.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East counterweighed his more unfortunate remarks with a candour for which I give him credit. I am not squealing, but as he has left me little time, I shall move to my conclusion. I shall have more to say, not least about theministerial decision that was based on the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading. In a spirit of candour I shall describe my position; to use a fashionable phrase, read my lips:
I can't start interfering with the particular management decisions that have been taken… No politician, if he's honest, will sit here and. say they can prevent someone losing their job.

Mr. Heppell: I agree.

Mr. Taylor: That is as well, because I am quoting the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said precisely that in the Nottingham Evening Post last week.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister go further and say that no one should interfere with the decisions of the Director General of Fair Trading?

Mr. Taylor: I will not be unduly drawn on the matter, but I think that the ultimate responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If I am mistaken, I shall rapidly return to the matter with a letter to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall put a copy in the Library.
We must now try to be constructive. I understand that Scottish Courage will take steps to redeploy staff wherever possible, and will work with local agencies to help staff who lose their jobs to find other work. The Government are well aware of the difficulties faced by those who may lose their jobs, and are fully committed to working with local partners to help ease the effects of the closures. Representatives from the local training and enterprise councils have already met local politicians, trade unions and other representatives to discuss how best to help those affected.
The decision taken by my predecessor not to refer the Scottish and Newcastle and Courage merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has been criticised. It may help if I explain how that decision was reached.
Last August, my predecessor announced that he had accepted undertakings from Scottish and Newcastle and Courage and that he would therefore not refer the merger to the MMC. The undertakings addressed competition concerns, which the Director General of Fair Trading had identified. They weaken the link between Scottish Courage and its retail estate by requiring Scottish Courage to reduce its tied estate and by setting a limit on the maximum number of tied pubs that the company can own.
I immediately acknowledge that the director general's original advice was that the merger should be referred to the MMC, because it would give rise to a significant concentration in the brewing industry, with no compensating reduction in vertical links. But my predecessor asked him to consider whether those concerns could be remedied by enforceable undertakings as an alternative to reference. The final decision taken by my
predecessor was in accordance with the independent

advice of the director general, and followed two periods of consultation about the form that the undertakings should take. In addition, the final undertakings were published, together with the director general's advice.
The whole process by which the undertakings were secured was highly transparent. If hon. Members read the director general's advice, they will see that he carefully considered third parties' views. He took those very much into account before he advised that they addressed the competition concerns arising from the merger, and that they should be accepted instead of the merger being referred to the MMC. The House will recognise that the undertakings given by the companies are aimed at addressing competition concerns arising from the merger.
Since 1984, the Government's policy has been that decisions on whether mergers are referred to the MMC are taken primarily on competition grounds. That will continue to be the case. It is important to consider the decision taken on the Scottish Courage case in the context of more recent regulatory intervention in the brewing industry.
In 1989, the MMC completed a monopoly report on the supply of beer. That led to the Beer Orders, which sought to encourage competition in the market, primarily by reducing the extent to which licensed premises were tied to the national brewers. There have been three major mergers since that report: between Allied and Carlsberg; Courage and Grand Metropolitan; and Scottish and Newcastle and Courage. The first two of those mergers were referred to the MMC.
I recognise that it was expected that the third would also be referred, so the Government's decision to allow the merger to proceed without a reference seems to have shocked some people. Some seem to think that a merger should be automatically referred whenever the market share rises above 25 per cent. Let me explain that the 25 per cent. threshold only establishes jurisdiction under the Fair Trading Act 1973, but is no more that a jurisdictional test. Moreover, new legislation enabled enforceable undertakings to be attained in the Scottish Courage case, which meant that competition concerns could be addressed without a reference to the MMC, as Parliament had always intended.
It does not mean that future brewing mergers will never be referred to the MMC, or that vertical links will be the only aspect of a brewing merger that the Government seek to address. In considering the action to be taken, each merger case is considered on its merits. The competition authorities assess the effect of the merger on the market, and take views of third parties. That is true of all mergers. Nor should there be a general presumption—that the Government would always intervene in markets.
Perhaps I can end, as earlier stated, with a quotation. It is the only time ever that I have claimed the Leader of the Opposition in aid of my argument, and it may never happen again. It has been an interesting week. He said:
obviously I can't start interfering with particular management decisions that have been taken… No politician, if he's honest, will sit here and say they can prevent someone losing their job. I can't.".
Nor can I.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.